2020 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

ALI BAIG, J.

Through the instant civil revision petition the petitioners has challenged the impugned judgment/decree dated 19-4-2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit whereby the learned 1st appellate court has dismissed the civil 1st appeal of the present petitioner/plaintiff.

2. Precisely the facts relevant for disposal of this revision petition are that the present petitioner/plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration against the respondents/ defendants in the trial court claiming that actual/ correct name of father of the petitioner/plaintiff is Muradi but the respondents / defendants have mentioned name of father of petitioner in CNIC as Fradi and as per service book of the petitioner correct date of birth of the petitioner/plaintiff is 02-7-1973, whereas the respondents/defendants have disclosed date of birth of the petitioner/plaintiff as 20-7-1960 which is wrong and against the facts, therefore the date of birth of the petitioner/plaintiff is required to be corrected in accordance with service book of the petitioner/plaintiff in the CNIC and name of father of the petitioner /plaintiff is also required to be corrected as Muradi instead of Faradi.

3. The defendants/respondents contested the suit by way of filing their written statement in the trial court, wherein they raised certain legal objections and have also repudiated the averments of plaint by contending / asserting that the date of birth of the petitioner and name of father petitioner/plaintiff have been disclosed in his CNIC in accordance with the information provided by the petitioner/plaintiff. 3 (sic) Out of divergent pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by the learned trial court:

4. After framing of the above-mentioned issues, the learned trial court directed the parties to adduce their evidence in support of their respective claims. Accordingly the petitioner/plaintiff has produced one oral witness namely Metar Jan son of Tati Khan besides recording of his own statement in the trial court. The plaintiff/petitioner has also produced a copy of his service book as documentary evidence. The respondents/defendants have not produced any oral or documentary evidence in the trial court except recording of their statement through departmental representative namely Ghulam Murtaza.

5. On conclusion of trial of case of the petitioner/plaintiff, the learned trial court after hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties has partially decreed the suit of the plaintiff/petitioner to the extent of correction of name of father of the petitioner/plaintiff and has dismissed the suit to the extent of correction of date of birth of the petitioner/plaintiff in his CNIC vide judgment/decree dated 2-11-2017. The aforesaid judgment/decree passed by the learned trial court was challenged before the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit through civil 1st appeal. The learned 1st appellate court after hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties has dismissed the civil 1st appeal of the present petitioner/plaintiff vide the impugned judgment/decree dated 19-4-2018. Hence this revision petition.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff contended that the impugned judgment/decree passed by the learned 1st appellate court is perverse, wrong and against the facts hence the impugned judgment/decree passed by the learned 1st appellate court is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff further argued the petitioner/plaintiff had proved his case by adducing reliable oral and documentary evidence in the trial court but the learned 1st appellate court as well as learned trial court have wrongly dismissed suit of the petitioner/plaintiff to the extent of correction of his date of birth in CNIC. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the impugned judgment passed by the learned 1st appellate court is a result of misreading and non-reading of the evidence of the parties, hence the impugned judgment passed by the learned 1st appellate court is not maintainable and liable to be set aside.

7. Conversely, the learned Legal Advisor appearing on behalf of respondents/defendants supported the impugned judgment passed by the learned 1st appellate court by contending that since the CNIC was issued to the petitioner on the basis of information provided by the petitioner/plaintiff, therefore the petitioner/plaintiff is estoped by his conduct and admission to institute the suit against answering defendants/respondents. The learned Legal Advisor for the respondents further argued that suit of the petitioner/plaintiff is time barred.

8. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

9. From perusal of record it transpires that the petitioner/plaintiff has averred in his plaint that the correct name of his father is Muradi but the respondents have mentioned name of father of the petitioner/plaintiff as Fradi in his computerized national identity card. He has further averred in the plaint that his actual/correct date of birth as per his service book is 2-7-1973 whereas the respondents have wrongly mentioned his date of birth in CNIC as 20-7-1960 which is wrong and against the facts. The plaintiff/petitioner had filed suit in the trial court to correct his date of birth and name of his father in his CNIC. In order to substantiate his claim plaintiff/petitioner has produced one oral witness namely Metar Jan and has also produced a copy of his service book as documentary evidence. The plaintiff/petitioner has also annexed original certificate issued by the Executive Engineer Works with this revision petition, wherein it has been certified that the petitioner is serving as helper (BPS 2) in the office of Chief Engineer W&P Department Gilgit region and his date birth in his service book has been recorded as 02-7-1973 while in CNIC issued in the year 2014 by NADRA his date of birth has been recorded as 20-7-1960 which may be corrected.

10. I have also gone through the contents of service book of the petitioner and found that the date of birth in service book of the petitioner has been recorded as 02-7-1973. The aforesaid document was also corroborated by oral evidence of Mr. Metar Jan P.W 1.

11. Under Rule 12A of Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, the date of birth once recorded at the time of joining of government service shall be final and thereafter no alteration in date of birth of a civil servant shall be permissible. In the instant case the date of birth of petitioner/plaintiff at the time joining of government service was 02-7-1973 and respondents have wrongly and illegally entered /recorded date of birth of the petitioner as 20-7-1960 in CNIC of the petitioner issued in the year 2014. A perusal of evidence adduced by the plaintiff/petitioner in the trial court shows that the plaintiff has proved his claim by adducing cogent and reliable oral and documentary evidence. The respondents / defendants have failed to adduce a single oral or documentary evidence to controvert/rebut the evidence and averments of plaint of the petitioner/plaintiff. Thus the impugned judgments passed by the learned trial court as well as the learned 1st appellate court are result of mis reading and non-reading of evidence of the parties.

12. The concurrent findings in the circumstances are not tenable as the petitioner was non suited on extraneous grounds warranting interference by this court through its revisional jurisdiction.

13. For the forgoing reasons, the instant revision petition is allowed, impugned judgments and decree passed by the learned trial court as well as 1st appellate court are set aside as a result thereof suit instituted by the petitioner shall stand decreed as prayed for with no order as to costs. File. ZC/40/GB Revision allowed.