1989 MLD 1376

Pir Anwar Shah v. Malik Asad Sikandar

Respondent No.1 was declared elected to the Provincial Assembly seat from this constituency. His
election was challenged by these two petitioners who petitioned inter ails that the respondent No.1 was
a disqualified candidate, he not having attained the minimum age of 25 years at the relevant date as
required by Article 62(b) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan read with Article 11(1)(b)
of the House of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Order, 1977. The petitioner prayed that
respondent No.l's election be declared as void.

The respondent No.1 filed written statement. This allegation was denied by the respondent No.1 and his
case was that he was much above 25 years at the date of filing his nomination paper. This was made
more specific at the time of trial and, in evidence the respondent's case was that he was born on 18-7-
1959.

Of the witness examined by the petitioners, none could give any direct evidence on the question of
respondent's age and on the respondent's side, Pir Bux Khaskheli, Syed Budhal Shah, Syed Abdullah Shah
who stated that it is in their personal knowledge that the respondent No.1 was born in the year 1959
because the birth of the respondent No.1 was celebrated by late Malik Sikandar. Pir Btu/ Khaskheli
admitted in his cross-examination that he was not aware whether any invitation card was issued
because at that time ho was 13 years Old. This witness contested National Assembly seat election from
this constituency. The respondent No.1 withdrew his nomination in favour of this witness. Syed Budhal
Shah admitted in his cross-examination that he is family friend of Malik Sikandar. Syed Abdullah Shah
also admitted in his cross-examination that he had very close relations with late Malik Sikandar. It is an
admitted position that the respondent No.1 supported Syed Abdullah Shah in his election. These
witnesses are interested persons. The Court find it difficult to base any conclusion on this question on
their evidence.

Court said All these documents show that the respondent No.1 was minor when the plaint was
presented, that is 25-10-1980. The documents are admissible under section 13 of the Evidence Act. In
my opinion the copy of written statement (Ext: 13/5), counter-affidavit of respondent No.1 (Ext: 13/9)
and the affidavit of the father of the respondent No.1 produced by the petitioner clinches the matter
beyond any doubt and the point needs no further elaboration. In the result, the admissions and
declarations of respondent No.1 that he was minor and 19 years old on 27-3-1982 in the absence of any
explanation or any convincing evidence forthcoming that it was false and nuture is binding on him and I
hold accordingly.

It is well-settled that a paty's admission as defined in sections 17 to 20 fulfilled the requirements of

section 21 of the Evidence Act. Articles 30 to 36 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 deal with admission.
An admission if clearly and unequivocally made, is the best evidence against the party making it. The
declarations and admissions made in the above documents Exts: 13/2 to 13/11 ante litem motam are
admissible to prove that respondent No.1 was born on 25-12-1966. These admissions were made much
preceding the election in question. These admissions were entitled to great weight. The petitioners had
shifted the burden on the respondent No.1 to show that they were incorrect. The respondent No.1 has
miserably failed to show that these admissions were incorrect.

In the result, the election petitions are, therefore, allowed. The election of the respondent No.1 to the
Sind Provincial Assembly is set aside and Is declared void. The parties will bear their own costs.