2021 PLP 1288 (YLR)

QAISER RASHID KHAN, J.

The petitioner, through the instant writ petition, has called in question the judgments and decrees dated 05.07.2019 and 17.10.2019 of the learned Civil Judge-II, Peshawar and the learned Additional District Judge-VII, Peshawar respectively, whereby the suit of the respondent No.1/plaintiff has been concurrently decreed.

2. Precisely, facts of the case are that the respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit against the petitioner etc./defendants before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Peshawar, for declaration to the effect that his correct date of birth is 25.06.1998 but has incorrectly been mentioned as 25.09.1996 in his matric certificate and hence requires rectification. It was contested only by the petitioner-defendant by filing written statement while the respondent No.2/defendant submitted cognovit in favour of the respondent No.1/plaintiff. After framing of issues and recording pro and contra evidence, the learned trial court decreed the suit in favour of the respondent No.1/plaintiff, vide judgment and decree dated 05.07.2019, where-against, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner-defendant, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-VII, Peshawar, vide judgment and decree dated 17.10.2019. Hence, the instant writ petition by the petitioner-defendant.

3. The gist of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant is that when the respondent No.1/plaintiff of his own had mentioned his date of birth as 25.06.1996 in the Admission Form for SSC examination, which was duly signed by his father, then, in that event, he cannot resile there from in any manner but this essential aspect of the case has totally been ignored by the learned courts below while handing down the impugned findings, which is a sheer example of misreading and non-reading of evidence and non-application of judicial mind and warrants interference of this court.

4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff argues that when the date of birth of the elder sister of the respondent/plaintiff, as per her matric certificate is 13.03.1997, then, in that event, his date of birth as 25.09.1996 is otherwise impossible as the age gap between two siblings is apparently unnatural, which fact has rightly been appreciated by the learned courts below while decreeing the suit in his favour.

5. The representative of the respondent No.2/NADRA supports the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.

6. Arguments heard and the available record perused.

7. The only issue involved in the instant case is the correction of date of birth of the respondent No.1/plaintiff. The available record depicts that the respondent/plaintiff had studied his primary education at Indus Highway Model High School. As per the extract from Admission and Withdrawal Register (Ex.PW-1/2) as well as School Leaving Certificate (Ex.PW-2/1), his date of birth has been shown as 25.06.1998 while his admission date therein has been mentioned as 04.04.2002. It goes without saying that normally a child with the age of about 4 or 5 years is admitted in school in nursery class. Moreover, the date of birth of one Shumaila Farman, the sister of the respondent/plaintiff, as per her matric certificate (Ex.PW-2/2) is 13.03.1997. Thus, keeping in view the date of birth of the respondents No.1/plaintiff as 25.06.1998 as per his school record, the age gap between the siblings is about fifteen months, which is quite natural. Even otherwise, the petitioner-defendant is also unclear about the actual date of birth of the respondent/plaintiff because, on one hand, it places reliance on the Admission Form (Ex.DW-1/1) of the respondent/plaintiff showing his date of birth as 25.06.1996 and, on the other hand, on his Registration Card (Ex.DW-1/2) reflecting his date of birth as 25.09.1996. If at all, for the sake of arguments, both the alleged dates of the respondent/plaintiff in juxtaposition with the date of birth of his sister are taken into account, even then, the same cannot be said to he natural. Both the learned courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence on the record while decreeing the suit of the respondent No.1/plaintiff.

8. In view of the foregoing discussion, I do not see any illegality, misreading and non-reading of evidence or for that matter any jurisdictional error in the impugned findings so as to in turn call for the Interference of this court through the present writ petition.

9. Accordingly, this writ petition being without any substance stands dismissed. SA/319/P Petition dismissed.