Sardar ABDUL REHMAN vs ABDUL KAREEM KHETRAN Ss — 2021 SCMR 82 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Sardar ABDUL REHMAN VS ABDUL KAREEM KHETRAN Ss. 144(4) & 148(1)---High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders, Vol. IV, Chapt XII---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VI, Rr. 14 & 15---Election petition---Maintainability---Verification of election petition and annexures---Procedure for verifications was provided in the [Lahore] High Court Rules and Orders, Vol. IV, Chapt. XII wherein form of oath and affirmation thereof, to be administered to the witnesses, were aptly illustrated---Non-compliance with the said procedure would be fatal to the election petition. Citation Name: 2021 SCMR 82 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case Sardar ABDUL REHMAN VS ABDUL KAREEM KHETRAN Ss. 144(4) & 148(1)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VI, Rr. 14 & 15---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 133---Election petition---Maintainability---Legal defects in verification of petition and annexures and mode of presentation---Petitioner assigned the responsibility for institution as well as prosecution of the election petition to his designated attorney, who was the person who appeared to have not only presented the election petition but also verified contents as well as annexures thereof as required under section 144 (4) of the Elections Act, 2017 ('the 2017 Act')---While O. VI, Rr. 14 & 15, C.P.C., generously permitted the parties to sign pleadings or verification either personally or through their designated attorneys, S. 144(4) of the 2017 Act mandatorily restricted the petitioner to personally undertake the exercise, violation whereof, would inevitably result into summary rejection of the petition as was evident from the plain language of S. 148(1) of the 2017 Act---Petitioner had to follow the procedure expressly provided by the 2017 Act itself; admittedly he did not follow the same---Same anomaly was recurring in all the annexures of the petition without exception---Only at the end of the proceedings the petitioner personally appeared to face cross-examination on his detailed affidavit, which again was signed and submitted by the attorney---Case record did not suggest that attorney appeared before the Tribunal, however, it was manifestly clear that for the detailed affidavit of petitioner, oath was never administered upon him, as was evident from the description of deponent thereof being no other than the attorney---Examination-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination were inseparable parts of a witness's deposition and it was not open for the petitioner, to adopt contents of an affidavit sworn by a different deponent---Election petition was held to be not maintainable---Appeal was allowed.

Sardar ABDUL REHMAN vs ABDUL KAREEM KHETRAN Ss — 2021 SCMR 82 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2021 SCMR