2014 PLP 1411 (MLD)

MALIK MANZOOR HUSSAIN, J.

Instant petition has been directed against Judgment and decree dated 30-5-2013 passed by the learned Appellate Court, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner have been dismissed and order of the learned Trial Court dated 3-1-2013 was maintained.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that petitioner filed suit against NADRA for declaration to the effect that her correct date of birth is 27-6-1982 whereas in her CNIC the same has wrongly been given as 1-3-1974. She also prayed for correction of the same in the respondent's record. The suit was dismissed by the learned Trial Court and the by the petitioner met the same fate, hence instant revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner confined his arguments on the ground that no one contested the suit and ex-parte evidence was adduced by the petitioner, hence in absence of any rebuttal the learned Trial Court was bound to pass the decree as prayed for. He further argued that the learned Appellate Court also failed to properly exercise its jurisdiction and passed the impugned Judgment in mechanical manner.

4. Conversely, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of NADRA, contended that entries of CNIC were based on the old Identity Card issued to the petitioner and also contended that CNIC issued in the year 2002, which is always issued on a duly sworn affidavit of the applicant duly attested by the Authorized Officer. From the year 2002 up till 23-11-2012 the petitioner was satisfied about the entry and thereafter she filed the suit for correction of the same, which was hopelessly time barred.

5. Arguments heard and record perused.

6. The perusal of record reveals that the petitioner mainly relied upon Primary School record and it has been noticed by this Court that neither the Record Keeper of the School nor any responsible officer of the School was produced to verify the contention of the petitioner. Similarly the School was not made a party in the plaint. The old Identity Card of the petitioner bears her date of birth as 1-3-1974 and the new CNIC issued in the year 2002 also depicts the same. The CNIC issued in the year 2002 is based on the affidavit of the petitioner duly attested by an Authorized Officer. No efforts were made by the pet petitioner for long ten years to apply for the correction of the same. The period of limitation to challenge the wrong entry through declaration is provided as six years, whereas the suit was filed after 10 years of the issuance of the Card and the same was hopelessly time barred. The record annexed by the petitioner in the Trial Court was not sufficient and also does not come with the definition of cogent and reliable evidence. The petitioner failed to prove her case and in the civil cases it is the petitioner who has to prove her case through cogent and reliable evidence.

7. In view of what has been observed, this petition is devoid of any force and hereby dismissed. JJK/168/P ???