2018 PLP 55 (YLRN)

MUHAMMAD ALI, J.

This civil revision is directed against judgments and decrees passed by the appellate Court and the trial Court whereby the appeal as well as the suit filed by the petitioner were dismissed.

2. The facts necessary for decision of this revision are that a suit for declaration seeking correction of date of birth from 10.09.1992 to 10.01.1986 was filed by the petitioner. It was stated in the plaint that the petitioner got his primary education from Elementary School District Jhang where correct date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as 10.01.1986. The petitioner passed his matriculation and FA examination from Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Faisalabad and got Bachelor degree from University of Punjab. The actual date. of birth. the petitioner is reflected in the degrees issued from concerned Boards and University. Similarly, in the domicile certificate of the petitioner his original date of birth is written. The Identity Card issued to the petitioner in the year 2008 also bears his correct date of birth. On renewal of Identity Card in 2012 inadvertently the date of birth of the petitioner was wrongly mentioned as 10.09.1992 instead of 10.01.1986. The petitioner applied for correction of his date of birth respondents declined to correct the same. Consequently, the suit was instituted.

3. The suit was contested by the respondents by controverting the contents of plaint in their written statement. Learned trial , Court framed necessary issues and after recording evidence of the parties dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 28.11.2014. The decision was challenged in appeal. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 19.02.2016, hence this civil revision.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that decisions pf the Courts below suffer from material irregularity and illegality, The findings are based on non-reading and misreading of evidence and are in violation of settled o principles of law. The petitioner through authentic documentary evidence proved that his date of birth is 10-01-1986 and not 10.09.1992. The Courts denied the relief on the basis o document Ex.D2, the petitioner specifically denied to have executed the document. The petitioner by getting his date of birth corrected was not gaining any favour and if the date is corrected it would enhance his age rather reducing the same. The respondents are estopped to dispute date of birth of the petitioner as they issued the first identity card with correct date of birth, which is available in their record.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that verification in NADRA office is done when a person appears and the form so issued is attested by the person himself. There was no chance for mentioning the wrong date of birth once the form is physically checked by the applicant. Submits that petitioner voluntarily appeared before the authorities and intentionally got his date of birth entered as 10.09.1992 by tendering document Ex.D

2. Submits that now the petitioner has once again changed his mind and wants to revert back to the date of birth mentioned. in the documents tendered by the petitioner i.e. 10.01.1986. Submits that as per policy of the respondents change of date of birth is allowed only once and second time change in date of birth is not allowed.

6. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The question to be determined by the Courts was, whether the petitioner was born on 10-01-1986 or 10-09-1992. The relevant issue framed in this behalf is Issue No.l. The onus of proof of this issue was on the petitioner-plaintiff The petitioner in order to discharge the onus appeared in the witness box as PW-1, in support of his oral evidence petitioner examined Ghulam Murtaza and Ali Abbas as PW-2 and PW-3 respectively. The document ExD2 and ExD3 respondents claim to have been tender by the petitioner well not properly confronted to the petitioner as required by law. Only general questions were asked. Most of the statement of witness PW-3 remained unchallenged. The petitioner m order to substantiate his oral evidence has produced his educational certificates/ degrees, identity card previously issued and domicile certificate as Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and Mark-A to Mark-D, the date of birth of the petitioner these documents is mentioned as 10-01-1986. The respondents produced their representative Abdul Qayuum as DW-1 who deposed inline with stance taken in the written statement.

8. The petitioner through oral and documentary evidence proved that his actual date of birth is 10-01-1986 and not 110-02-1992. The documents are official record and their authenticity could not be doubted. The findings of trail Court under issue No. 1 are based on presumptions, without properly ? appreciating the effect of documentary evidence of the petitioner, the trial Court presumed in para No. 8 of its judgment that the plaintiff would have got his date of birth changed from the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Faisalabad. The petitioner denied execution of documents ExD2 and ExD

3. These documents were not properly proved by the respondents, the documents were tendered in evidence in statement of counsel. There is no reference to the policy of the respondents as argued by learned counsel for respondents in statement of DW-1 neither any document to this effect was tendered. The appellate Court without formulating points of determination while deciding the appeal relied upon the stance of respondents and has not considered the impact of oral and documentary evidence of the petitioner. it was wrongly held by the Courts below that petitioner applied for change of date of birth. The basic question whether the petitioner was born on 10-01-1986 or 10-09-1992 was left undecided. The trial court and appellate Court have failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested them by not considering the plea of the petitioner supported by overwhelming documentary evidence showing his, real date of birth. The findings of the Courts below are result of misreading and, non-reading of evidence and in doing so the Courts have exercised the jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity.

9. For what has been discussed above, this civil revision is allowed. The judgments and decrees of the appellate Court 91 trial Court dated 19-02-2016 and 28-11-2015 respectively are set aside and suit of the petitioner is decreed. There is no order as to costs. ZC/M-117/L Revision allowed.