2010 PLP 527 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD HASHAM ANSARI — Applicant Versus BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, KARACHI through Secretary — Respondent
| Citation | 2010 PLP 527 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HASHAM ANSARI — Applicant Versus BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, KARACHI through Secretary — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 527 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 527 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 527 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD HASHAM ANSARI — Applicant Versus BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, KARACHI through Secretary — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Masroor Ahmed Alvi for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 115
Board of Education issued matric certificate mentioning the same date which applicant had mentioned in his Admission Form-Suit for correction of date of birth was filed by the applicant after nine years
Counsel for the applicant was unable to point out any defect in the concurrent findings of both the courts below
In absence of any defect of misreading or non-reading of evidence in concurrent findings of two courts below, interference of High Court in civil revision would amount to improper exercise of revisional jurisdiction
Re-examination and reappraisal of evidence was not permissible in revisional jurisdiction, even if another view different from the impugned order could also be taken
No illegality or irregularity having been found in the concurrent findings of the lower courts, same could not be interfered with by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
FAISAL ARAB, J.
Applicant has impugned the concurrent findings of the lower Courts stating that his correct date of birth is 19-11-1980 and not 19-11-1979. It has come on record that the applicant at the time of filing his Admission Form had mentioned his date of birth as 19-11-1979. The respondent accordingly issued Matric Certificate in the year 1998 mentioning the same date of birth. The suit for correction in the date of birth was filed by the applicant after nine years. Counsel for the applicant is unable to point out any defect in the concurrent findings of both the courts below. In absence of any defect of misreading or non-reading of evidence in concurrent findings of two courts below, interference of High Court in civil revision amounts to improper exercise of revisional jurisdiction. It is settled law that re-examination and reappraisal of evidence is not permissible in revisional jurisdiction even if another view different from the impugned order can also be taken. This Court finds no illegality or irregularity in the concurrent findings of the lower courts which do not require interference by this Court. Therefore, the revision application is dismissed. H.B.T./M-20/K Petition dismissed.