2006 PLP 1850 (CLC)

MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.

The respondent filed a suit for the declaration against the petitioner seeking change in the entry of his date of birth in the record of the petitioner. The suit; after contest, was allowed by the learned Civil Judge vide judgment and decree dated 11-10-1997. Appeal of the petitioner was filed on 6-4-1999.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent appeared in the matriculation examination of the petitioner-Board, in the year 1959, under Roll No.24359. In the admission form (Exh.D.2), filled by the respondent, the date of birth was incorporated as 15-5-1941. Thereafter, on 9-1-1995, the respondent moved an application to the petitioner-Board for the correction of his date of birth from 15-5-1941 to 29-1-1944, which was rejected by the Board vide order, dated 26-2-1995. The respondent sought the declaration and challenged the aforesaid order through civil suit instituted on 29-3-1995. The matter was contested; parties were put to trial and as mentioned earlier, the suit was allowed by the learned Civil Judge and appeal of the petitioner has failed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by relying upon the judgments reported as Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education through Chairman and 3 others v. Javed Iqbal Bajwa 2005 YLR 2114; Board of Intermediate termediate and Secondary Education, Lahore through Chairman v. Ishrat Sultana 2001 YLR 66; Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore through Secretary v. Mst. Sobia Chand 1999 CLC 1166 and Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore through Secretary v. Miss Ghazala Roohi 2002 MLD 1966, has argued that in view of the bar contained in sections 29 and 31 of the Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976, the Civil Courts had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the matters relating to the correction of the date in relation to the record of the petitioner-Board.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the above judgments. Obviously, it is clearly laid down in the afore-mentioned dictums about the lack of jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in this regard. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent has not challenged any order passed by the Board and, therefore, the bar of jurisdiction contained in the afore-mentioned sections shall not be applicable, has no merits for the reason that the law in fact has ousted the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts from making any order of passing the decree regarding correction of the date of birth in the record of the Board, notwithstanding any order or otherwise of the Board. Moreover, there are no allegations levelled in the plaint with regard to mala fide and lack of good faith on part of the Board.

5. Even on merits, the respondent himself had incorporated 15-5-1941 as his date of birth in the Admission Form, submitted for tae purpose of examination and had cleared the examination somewhere in the year 1959. He never agitated the matter before and slept over for such a considerable period when for the first time, the alleged grievance was agitated in the year 1995. In these circumstances, irrespective whether the law of limitation debars the respondent from filing the suit or not, suffice it to say that the delay by itself tantamounts to acquiescence and shall operate as an estoppel towards the respondent to file the civil suit. In the light of above, by allowing this revision petition, the judgments and decrees of the two Courts below are set aside. H.B.T./B-26/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision allowed.