2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

This revision petition under section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure by plaintiff is directed against judgment and decree dated 5-6-1997 passed by Additional District Judge, Lahore, whereby while partly allowing the appeal of the respondent-defendant assailing the judgment of Trial Court decreeing the declaratory suit of the petitioner, the same was modified to certain extent, indicated therein.

2. The petitioner, a senior officer serving the respondent bank, brought a declaratory suit to the effect that he was in fact born on 21-7-1942 and the date of his birth as mentioned by the respondent in its record i.e. 6-6-1938 was incorrect. It was averred that already, on the motion of the petitioner, the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education has corrected his date of birth in the matriculation certificate as 21-7-1942 and, his National Identity Card was also corrected accordingly by the competent authority. Mandatory injunction was sought to be issued to the respondent bank to make necessary correction about the age of the petitioner in their record and permit him to continue to serve keeping in view the corrected date of birth.

3. Suit was contested. The factual assertions made in the plaint were controverted besides raising number of preliminary objections. Learned Civil Judge proceeded to frame issues, arising from the pleadings of the parties and recorded their evidence. Ultimately, vide judgment dated 14-4-1997 suit was decreed as prayed for. On appeal by the respondent bank the judgment and decree of the Trial Court was modified. It was held that the Trial Court was right in awarding the declaration about the correct date of birth of the respondent. It was, however, found that the Trial Court was not justified to grant a declaration about terms and conditions of service of the respondent as Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try, a suit seeking relief that the petitioner be held entitled to continue to serve up to certain dates. Decree of the Trial Court was modified accordingly.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that since the date of birth of the petitioner stood corrected under the decree of the Trial Court, learned Additional District Judge was not justified to deny the petitioner declaration with regard to his right to serve the respondent bank in the light of the said corrected date of birth.

5. There is no merit whatsoever in this revision petition. Law on the point stands finally settled by authoritative pronouncement of Supreme Court of Pakistan in Sarfraz Khan v. Federation of Pakistan (1986 SCMR 1950). It was laid down by their Lordships that keeping in view provisions of sections 52 and 54 of Specific Relief Act, suit for relief to the effect that the plaintiff was entitled to continue service upto a certain date was outside the purview of jurisdiction of Civil Court. No illegality was committed by learned Lower Appellate Court in modifying the decree of the Trial Court in the manner and to the extent, indicated in the appellate judgment. Dismissed. Q.M.H./N-35/L Revision dismissed.