MUHAMMAD SHAFI AND ANOTHER vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL, MULTAN AND ANOTHER
This constitutional petition challenges the order of the Election Tribunal restoring an election petition that had been previously dismissed in default. The core legal question was whether an Election Tribunal possesses the inherent jurisdiction to restore a matter dismissed in default when not expressly authorized by the governing rules. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that an adjudicating body or tribunal possesses the inherent jurisdiction to recall an order of dismissal for non-prosecution and restore the matter to prevent a failure of justice, unless such power is expressly taken away by statute. The key principle laid down is that courts and tribunals inherently possess all powers necessary to do justice between the parties and determine matters on merits unless restricted by express statutory provision.
- Does an Election Tribunal have the inherent jurisdiction to restore an election petition dismissed in default?
- Can a court or tribunal recall an order of dismissal for non-prosecution if not expressly authorized by statute?
- Does the absence of an express provision in the rules regarding restoration bar a tribunal from restoring a dismissed matter?
- Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979
' ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.-Respondent No, 2 had filed an election petition against the petitioners.
The same came up for hearing before the Election Tribunal on 13th January, 1981 when it was dismissed in default. The counsel for the respondent No, 2, the election petitioner filed an application for restoration the same day saying that the case was fixed, at No, 50 and he was busy in other Courts. The application, after hearing both the parties was allowed by the learned Election Tribunal vide order dated 11th April, 1981. This is challenged by the petitioners through the aforetitled Constitutional petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the Election Tribunal had no right to restore the election in default because he was not so authorised under any of the provisions of the Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979 and the C.P.C.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent No, 2 has submitted that it is within the jurisdiction of a Court or a Tribunal to restore a matter dismissed in default if the circumstances so justify. He has placed reliance on Mst. Shahjahan Begum v. Mst. Shabbir Fatima and another and Muhammad Aslam Mirza v. Mst. Khurshid Begum.
4. We agree with the learned counsel for respondent No, 2 that it is within the inherent jurisdiction of a Court or a Tribunal to take up the matter again, if it has been dismissed for non-prosecution if the nonappearance is justified in the circumstances of the case., The matter can be illustrated by means of a simple example. A case is called for. The party does not appear. It is dismissed in default. Soon thereafter the party appears and states that it stumbled on the way and was late only by a fraction of a minute. It will be open to the Court to say that it will recall its order of1 2 dismissal in default and hear the party. It cannot be said that A the Court has no such power. Such an authority vests in an adjudicating body to determine the matter on merits. Unless it is expressly taken away by statute, the Court or Tribunal will have power to do all that is necessary to do justice between the parties. The contention to the contrary of the learned counsel for the petitioners has no force or merit. In the present case, the learned Election Tribunal has allowed the restoration application in the circumstances of the case and he having jurisdiction, it cannot be said that it acted without lawful authority.
5. In view of what has been stated above, there is no force in the petition and the same is, accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs. PLD 1972 Lab. 546 PLD 1972 Lab, 603
Cited by 9 cases
- Muhammad Yar vs Naveed Aslam Khan Lodhi, etc 2025 LHC 4571
- MUHAMMAD YAR Versus NAVEED ASLAM KHAN LODHI 2025 PLD 692
- ARBAB ANWAR JABBAR vs Makhdoom KHALIL UL ZAMAN And Other 2014 CLC 1208
- MUHAMMAD AJMAL vs Rana AFTAB AHMAD and 5 others 2009 CLC 647
- Muhammad Ajmal vs Rana Aftab Ahmed etc. 2009 C.L.R. 1222
- Sued FAKHAR IMAM vs MUHAMMAD RAZA HAYAT MIRAJ and 5 others 2009 C LC 1
- Syed FAKHAR IMAM vs MUHAMMAD RAZA HAYAT HIRAJ and 5 others 2009 PLJ Lahore 1
- Sued FAKHAR IMAM Versus MUHAMMAD RAZA HAYAT MIRAJ 2009 CLC 1
- Syed Fakhar Imam vs Muhammad Raza Hayat Hiraj 2009 C.L.R. 725