CORRECTION OF NAME .....V/S ....NADRA
Lahore High Court
MUSHTAQ AHMAD TARAR, J
Board Of Intermediate And Secondary Education, Multan VS Rana Ashfaq Ahmad Etc
Civil Revision No. 1207-D of 2011
24.02.2016
Reported As [2016 LHC 659]
Keywords:
Result:
MUSHTAQ AHMAD TARAR J, The petitioner has directed this civil revision petition against the judgment and decree dated 17.08.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner filed against the judgment and decree dated 27.4.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Multan in the suit for declaration filed by the respondents.
2. The facts in brief leading to this civil revision are that respondents filed suit for declaration and mandatory injunction against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner has entered incorrect and wrong dates of birth of the respondents in their matric certificates. The following chart will show the alleged correct dates of birth of the respondents in the plaint and the dates of birth of the respondents mentioned in the matric certificates.
{{TABLE}}
Sr.
No. Name of Respondent Correct dates of
Birth alleged in the plaint Dates of birth of respondents mentioned in the matric certificates
1. Rana Ishfaq Ahmad 17.9.1980 17.09.1976
2. Farzana Bashir 1.12.1983 01.12.1977
3. Robina Bashir 29.10.1986 29.10.1980
4. Ramzan Bano 10.7.1988 10.07.1983
{{TABLE}}
3. The respondents have asserted in the plaint that dates of birth mentioned in their matric certificates are against the facts, hence, correction should be made and the petitioner be directed to enter their correct dates of birth in the record. The petitioner submitted contesting written statement, wherein six preliminary objections about maintainability of suit were taken. On merits the petitioner contended that dates of birth of the respondents have been entered in their matriculation certificates according to the particulars provided by them in their admission forms, no mistake or negligence has been committed by the petitioner and the suit merits dismissal.
4. After framing the issues, the parties were put to trial, their pro and contra evidence was recorded and suit of the respondents was decreed by the learned trial Judge whereas appeal filed by the petitioner before the learned Additional District Judge was dismissed hence this revision petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents have procured bogus birth certificates after long period of their appearance in the matriculation examination; that the dates of birth of the respondents in their matriculation certificates were mentioned by the petitioner according to the particulars provided by the respondents in their admission forms and there is no malafide or negligence of the petitioner; that the suit was not competent under sections 29 & 31 of The Punjab Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education Act, 1976; that the suit was hopelessly time barred; that both the learned Courts below have committed material illegality while passing the impugned judgments and decrees against the law and facts of the case.
6. On the other side, learned counsel for the respondents argued that both the Courts below have passed the judgments and decrees in accordance with law; that concurrent findings of two learned Courts below cannot be disturbed in revisional jurisdiction. He has placed reliance upon “Nazir Ahmed through L.Rs. Vs. UMRA and others” (2002 SCMR 1114) and “Ghulam Rasool Vs. Ghulam Mustafa and others (1999 YLR 398).
7. Arguments heard, record perused.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly relied upon the provisions of sections 29 & 31 of The Punjab Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education Act, 1976 and urged that jurisdiction of the learned Civil Judge was exclusively barred to try the suit filed by the respondents. I would like to reproduce the relevant provisions of the Act referred supra for the sake of convenience. Section 29 & 31 read as under:-
29. No act done, order made or proceedings taken by a Board in pursuance of the provision of this Act shall be called in question in any Court.
31. No suit for damages or other legal proceedings shall be instituted against Government, the Controlling Authority, a Board, a Committee, a member of a Committee or an officer or employee of a Board in respect of anything done or purported to have been done in good faith in pursuance of the provisions of this Act and the Regulations and Rules made thereunder.
9. In this case the respondents have asserted in the plaint that the petitioner has entered incorrect dates of birth in their matric certificates mistakenly, whereas, on the other side, the stance of the petitioner in written statement was that the dates of birth of the respondents have been entered in their matric certificates correctly according to the particulars provided by the respondents.
10. In evidence respondent No. 1 Rana Ishfaq Ahmad as PW-1 in his examination-in-chief stated that in his matric certificate the Board has wrongly entered his date of birth as 17.9.1976 instead of 17.09.1980. He further deposed that earlier he filed suit against Director NADRA for correction of his date of birth which was decreed on 10.2.2010. During cross-examination he admitted that Ex. D-1 is admission Form signed by him and there is no cutting in the column of date of birth in the said form. He admitted correct that the date of birth which was mentioned in his admission form Ex. D1 has been entered by the petitioner in his matric certificate and there is no mistake on behalf of the Board, however, he stated that it was fault of teachers. Respondent No. 2 Farzana Bashir as PW-2 in examination¬in-chief has recorded similar statement that her date of birth has been wrongly entered in her matric certificate as 01.02.1977 instead of 01.12.1983 and that her suit against Director NADRA for correction of date of birth was decreed on 10.2.2010. During cross-examination she admitted correct that her signatures are present upon her admission form Ex. D-2 and that same date of birth as mentioned in her admission form has been entered in her matric certificate. She further deposed that there is no fault of the Board and it was mistake of teachers as she was minor at the time of filling admission form. Respondent No. 3 Rubina Bashir as PW-3 and respondent No. 4 Ramzan Bano in her statement as PW-4 also made similar statements and during cross-examination admitted correct that the same dates of birth as mentioned in their admission forms have been entered by the petitioner in their matric certificates.
11. It is established and proved from the own evidence of the respondents that the petitioner has entered the dates of birth of the respondents in their matric certificates according to the particulars & dates provided and mentioned by the respondents in their admission forms submitted for matriculation examination. It is also established from the record and from the evidence of the respondents that no negligence or mistake on behalf of the petitioner has been committed regarding the entries of dates of birth of the respondents in their matric certificates issued by the petitioner. The respondents have not cited or established any malafide against any officer or official of the petitioner/Board regarding the entries of their dates of birth.
12. The provisions of sections 29 & 31 referred supra are very clear that the proceedings or any act done by the Board can only be tried by way of civil suit if the act done by the Board or any officer or official of the Board is purported to have been done with malafide intention. But in the present case the respondents have not placed on record any evidence to prove any negligence or malafide on behalf of the petitioner regarding entries of their dates of birth. Therefore, in these circumstances, learned Judges of both the courts below without assuming the jurisdiction have decided the question with regard to the dates of birth of the respondents, and thus, assumption of jurisdiction in the matter was erroneous rendering the judgments of both the courts below impugned herein as wholly without jurisdiction and coram-non-judice. Reliance in this respect is placed upon “Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore through Chairman Vs. Mst. Ambreen Ashraf and another” (2008 YLR 2388), “Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Gujranwala through Chairman Vs. Sohaib Abbas and 2 others” (2006 YLR 1271), and “Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education through Chairman Vs. Muhammad Ishaque” (2006 CLC 185.
13. The respondents have tendered in evidence their birth certificates and the copies of the judgments passed by the learned Civil Court in the suit filed by the respondent against Director NADRA, regarding correction of their dates of birth in the NADRA record. The birth certificate of Rana Ishfaq Ahmad respondent No. 1 Ex. P1/1 reveals that alleged correct date of birth 17.09.1980 was got entered in the record of Union Council on 23.10.2008, after 28 years whereas, admittedly he appeared in matric examination held in the year 1994. Likewise, the entry of alleged correct date of birth 1.12.1983 of Farzana Bashir respondent No. 2 was got entered in the record of Union Council on 23.10.2008, after 25 years whereas, she as per plaint of the respondents appeared in matric examination held in the year 1996. The civil suits were also filed by the respondents against Director NADRA for correction of their dates of birth in the record of NADRA in the year 2010. It is quite strange and shocking that the petitioner was not arrayed as defendant in the said suit by the respondents in spite of the fact that all the respondents had appeared in matriculation examination prior to the year 2002 and their dates of birth mentioned in their matriculation certificates were well within their knowledge. Hence, in these circumstances no veracity or authenticity can be attached to the alleged birth certificates got issued on the basis of entries procured in the Union Council in the year 2008. Reliance is placed upon “Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore through Secretary Vs. Mst. Sobia Chand” (1999 CLC 1166).
14. There is another aspect of the case which has been over looked by the courts below. The respondent No. 2 Farzana Bashir has alleged in the plaint and evidence that her correct date of birth is 1.12.1983, whereas, in her matric certificate her date of birth is mentioned as 1.12.1977. According to the plaint and the record she appeared in matric examination held in the year 1996 vide Roll No. 26088. Now if her date of birth is considered as 1.12.1983 as alleged by her in the plaint and evidence, then she was about 12 years and six months at the time of matric examination held in the year 1996. How a girl about the aged of less than 13 years can appear in matric examination. Likewise, if the alleged date of birth of respondent No. 4 Ramzan Bano mentioned in her plaint and evidence 10.7.1988 is considered as correct then she was of the age of less than 14 years at the time of matric examination held in the year 2002 in which she participated through Roll No. 43519. These eventualities also show that the respondents have got procured their alleged birth certificates and other fictitious documents with malafide intention.
15. The suit of the respondents was also time barred and it was the duty of learned courts below to see the point of limitation. It is case of the respondents in the plaint and evidence that respondent No. 1 Rana Ishfaq Ahmad appeared in the matric examination held in the year 1994, respondent No. 2 Farzana Bashir appeared in the year 1996 whereas, Rubina Bashir respondent No. 3 and Ramzan Bano respondent No. 4 participated in the matric examination held in the year 2002 and their matric certificates were issued to them accordingly. The claim of the respondents in the plaint is that their incorrect dates of birth have been mentioned in their matric certificates and the respondents have sought declaration for correction of said entries. Article 120 of Limitation Act, provides period of six years for filing the suit for declaration, whereas, the respondents filed the suit on 21.9.2010 after expiry of limitation period of six years. There is nothing on the record on behalf of the respondents that their dates of birth mentioned in their matric certificates were not in their knowledge. Respondent No. 1 has filed the suit after 16 years of his appearance in the matric examination, respondent No. 2 has filed the suit after 14 years of her appearance, whereas, respondents No. 3 & 4 have filed suit after 8 years of their appearance in the matric examination and no cause or explanation has been provided that why they did not file the lis within limitation period for correction of their dates of birth. Hence, their suit was also liable to be dismissed being time barred.
16. In view of the above discussion and observations, I am of the view that both the judgments and decrees of the learned trial court and the learned Appellate Court are nullity in the eyes of law and are not sustainable. Resultantly, this Civil Revision is accepted and the impugned judgments and decrees dated 27.4.2011 & 17.8.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Multan and the learned Additional District Judge, Multan respectively are set aside and as sequel the suit of the respondents is dismissed.
