2020 PLP 157 (MLD)

KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.

The captioned second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 09.02.2016 and decree dated 10.02.2016, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kotri, dismissing the Civil Appeal No.13 of 2015 re: Naveed v. NADRA and others, filed against the judgment dated 20.02.2015 and decree dated 21.2.2015, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kotri, whereby the suit being F.C. Suit No.17 of 2014 re: Naveed v. NADRA and others was dismissed.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant Naveed was issued NIC showing his date of birth as 01.03.1982, but the appellant/ plaintiff attempted to get the said date 01.03.1982 changed into 22.05.1988 by approaching the NADRA authority. As the appellant/ plaintiff could not succeed in getting his date of birth changed, hence he filed the subject suit with the following prayers:- (a) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare that the date of birth of plaintiff as 22.05.1988. (b) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the defendants/NADRA authority to correct the date of birth of the plaintiff and issue fresh CNIC with correct date of birth as 22.05.1988. (c) That any other relief this Honourable Court may also be granted. (d) Costs of the suit be borne on the defendants.

3. After service, the defendants filed their written statement, wherein they denied all the allegations leveled against them and further stated therein that the suit of the appellant/plaintiff is not maintainable and no cause of action has accrued to the appellant/plaintiff against the defendants; and, that the suit is hit by Section 40 of NADRA Ordinance, 2000.

4. On divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:-- (1) Whether the suit is not maintainable? (2) Whether the correct date of birth of plaintiff is 22.05.1988? (3) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by section 40 of NADRA Ordinance, 2000? (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed by him? (5) What should the decree be?

5. The appellant/plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 at Ex.15, whereafter the learned counsel for the plaintiff closed his side vide statement at Ex.16. Defendant/NADRA examined one Fayaz Ahmed Janjhi, Deputy Assistant Director NADRA, Kotri at DW-1 at Ex.17 and then the side of the defendants was closed by their learned counsel vide statement at Ex.18.

6. At the conclusion of the trial and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 20.02.2015 and decree dated 21.02.2015. The appellant/ plaintiff being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree filed appeal in the Court of District Judge, Jamshoro, which was ultimately decided by the earned Additional District Judge, Kotri vide judgment dated 09.02.2016 and decree dated 10.02.2016, whereby the said appeal was dismissed. Hence, the appellant/plaintiff has filed this second appeal.

7. None is present for the appellant to address the arguments on his behalf. Learned D.A.G has mainly contended that the appellant himself had shown his date of birth as 01.03.1982 in his requisite form for NIC obtained by him in the year 2000; that in his CNIC issued in the year 2005 and in his revised CNIC obtained by him due to change of his marital status, his date of birth is shown as 01.03.1982; and, that there is no illegality or any infirmity in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below. He, therefore, prays that appeal may be dismissed.

8. I have considered the submissions of the learned D.A.G. and have gone through the material brought on the record.

9. From a perusal of the record, it would be seen that the appellant/plaintiff had firstly obtained his NIC in the year 2000, wherein his date of birth is clearly; shown as 01.03.1982; the appellant/plaintiff submitted a computer generated form along with a copy of CNIC of his father and manual NIC of his father for obtaining his CNIC in the year 2005 with his thumb impression as is admitted by him in his cross examination mentioning his date of birth is 01.03.1982; then again in the year 2013 appellant/plaintiff due to change of his marital status obtained his revised CNIC wherein also his date of births is shown as 01.03.1982. It is not the case of the appellant/plaintiff that he ever raised, any objection to his date of birth 01.03.1982 shown in his NIC; CNIC; and revised CNIC; the learned trial Court by appreciating the evidence brought on the record has dismissed the suit of the appellant/plaintiff; and, the learned appellate Court after reappraisal of the evidence, dismissed the appeal of the appellant/plaintiff filed against the judgment and decree, passed by the learned trial Court. On evaluating the evidence brought on the record, I have also not found any evidence worth consideration to establish that the date of birth of the appellant/plaintiff is 22.05.1988. Patently, the appellant/plaintiff, who has now become over age for the government job by filing the suit, has attempted to change his date of birth from 01.03.1982 to 22.5.1988. Manifestly, the concurrent findings arrived at by the learned Courts below are based on appraisal of the evidence brought on record; and, that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below suffering from no illegality or any misreading or non-reading of the evidence and/or any jurisdictional defect do not call for any interference under the provisions of section 100 of Code, of Civil Procedure, 1908. Accordingly, this second appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed. These are the reasons of short order announced by me on 12.09.2018, whereby this second appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. SA/N-19/Sindh Appeal dismissed.