' DR. SAJID QURESHI, J.---The respondent Junaid Rehmat had filed a suit for declaration and correction of date of birth contending that his date of birth in Secondary School Certificate had been wrongly mentioned as 26-6-75, while actually the same was 28-9-1976. The respondent had applied for correction of the dates after fulfilling all the formalities but the petitioner refused to make the necessary correction in its record. The learned trial court decreed the suit of the respondent vide judgment and decree dated 12-12- 2002. That the petitioner being dissatisfied and feeling aggrieved against the said judgment/decree, filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Islamabad, which was ultimately entrusted to Ch. Habib-urRehman, Additional District Judge, Islamabad, who dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 11-2-2004 upholding the judgment and decree dated 12-12-2002. The petitioner has filed the instant revision petition under Section 115 of C.P.C. Against the judgments/decree dated 11-22004 and 12-12-2002 respectively, on the ground that, inter alia, the decision were against the law, there has been misreading and non- reading of evidence, the application was time-barred and the documents were an afterthought and were not authenticated properly.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the time period of 11 years had expired because in 1991 when the knowledge was obtained by the respondent, the suit was filed in 2002, that under Section 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908, the time limit is six years which had ultimately expired. That the respondent is estopped by words and actions. The learned counsel stated that the medical record and other documents had been corrected after several years relying on 2001 CLC 972, Saima Altaf v. Principal Junior Burn Hall Girls College. Abbotabad), in which the medical certificate was not issued at the birth of the (sic) held that this would not be accepted. Additionally the Civil Court cannot correct the date of birth since it has no jurisdiction relying on 2005 YLR 2114, (Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education v. Javed Iqbal Bajwa). The learned counsel stated that as soon as the incorrect information regarding the date of birth was received, the respondent did not file any suit straightaway and thus the suit was blatantly barred by time under Article 120 of the said Limitation Act, 1908. The learned counsel further contended that if the documents had contained wrong date on the certificate i.e, 26.4.75 then he should have got the school record corrected before, approaching the Board, relying on 1999 CLC 984 (Ejaz Mehmood v.. BISE).That in case of any mistake the correction time is three years within Section 96 of the Limitation Act, 1908.
The learned counsel vehemently argued that there was a delay of several years which itself amounts to acquiescence and shall operate as estoppel towards the respondent to file the civil suit relying on 2006 CLC 1850, (BISE v. Muhammad Ishaque). It was correct that the representation was made to the college but was rejected and regretted which was, in accordance with the Education Code issued by the Directorate of Federal (sic).
3. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the actual date of birth was 28-9-76, which had been written wrongly in the certificate as 26-4-75. That the learned Civil Judge and the learned ADJ, Islamabad, were correct in their decisions were in accordance with law. On the facts, the respondent had made proper application/representation on the prescribed format for correction on 29-10-1999 which had been refused/regretted by the petitioner on 26-11-1999 and that the respondent had discovered the incorrect date of birth on his intermediate certificate dated 25th June, 1991. Further, correspondence was also made to various departments for correction but as a result of regret, the respondent then had filed a suit for declaration and correction of date of birth before the trial Court. Upon observation of admission and withdrawal register of the Islamabad Model School for Girls, serial No, 7123, clearly the date of birth was corrected vide office order No,ICG/ORG/606 dated 16-11-1999, hence correction had been made officially in the said register. This is reflected in the said register. Further, the birth certificate also reveals the correct date of birth along with the letter dated 16-11-1999 issued from the Islamabad College for Girls, which had also corrected the date of birth to read 7-12-1994 also reflects the age of the respondent to be 18 years old, hence implying that the date of birth is around 1976. The learned counsel pointed out that the petitioner did not disprove or take any form of action against the aforementioned documents as being incorrect, hence they are implied to be correct; there was ample opportunity for the petitioner to take action but none was taken. As far as the 10 years rule in the Education Code is concerned, the application was made within 10 years. Upon examination of the B-Form, ID Card and record of hospital, these important documents show the corrected date of birth and none of these documents were disputed before the trial Court or during the appeal before the learned ADJ, Islamabad. No one has been affected by this decision and since no promotion has been gained based on the corrected date of birth, hence no loss has been suffered by anybody. The learned counsel relied heavily on several case-law on the non-interference by the High Court on concurrent findings of the trial Court and the ADJ. These are reproduced below:---
(i) 2005 YLR 2286 Lahore (Feroze Begum through General Attorney v., Province of Punjab through Collector Khushab and another).
(ii) 2005 SCMR 346 (SC) (Abdul Rahim and others v. Mrs. Jannatay Bibi and others)
(iii) 2000 SCMR 431 (SC) (Anwar Zaman and others v. Bahadur Sher and others).
(iv) (sic)
(v) 2005 CLC 368 Lahore, (Dr. Sadiq Hussain v. Mst. Maqbool Begum and others).
(vi) PLD 2005 Pesh. 69, (Haji Muhammad Ameen v. Messrs Frontier Ceramics Ltd Peshawar).
(vii) 1985 CLC 657. Lahore, (Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education v. Syed Khalid Mahmood).
(viii)PLD 1994 SC 291, (Haji Muhammad Din v. Malik Muhammad Abdullah).
(ix) 2005 MLD 364, (Munir Ahmad and others v. Muhammad Saddique).
(x) 2005 YLR 1725 Peshawar, (Iqbal Mand and others v. Shahi Bakhsh and others).
(xi) 2000 SCMR 1647 (SC), Aziz Ullah Khan and others v. Gul Muhammad Khan)..
4. I have heard both the counsel at length, examined the record and perused the case law.
5. The respondent had filed a suit for declaration and correction of date of birth before the trial Court, Islamabad, who had, examined all the issues and the decree was issued in favour of the respondent. The respondent had applied .For correction through proper process and had exhausted his local remedy. The petitioner had regretted the request made without assigning any reasons, which were not reiterated before the trial Court and the learned ADJ, Islamabad. The parties had produced evidence, which was duly examined by the lower Courts. On the omission of the correct date of birth, there may have been an error. Errors do occur and one has to see whether there has been any benefits gained from such errors either directly or indirectly. There is substantial documentary proof of following documents, the B Form, ID Card, Domicile Certificate (Age of years), birth certificate, record of', the hospital and more importantly no other person has suffered adversely because of making such correction and the record shows that he has not gained any promotion throughout his academic career due to this correction of date of birth. The petitioner had not disproved any of the evidence before the lower Courts and had not taken any such action to counter the documents submitted as evidence, therefore, implying that they had accepted the documents as evidence and from the record the petitioner did not summon the original record. From the record of the lower Courts, there is no misreading or non-reading of evidence. Ample opportunity was given to challenge the same before the lower Courts but this was not availed by the petitioner. The case-law referred to by the respondent is mostly on the concurrent findings of the lower Courts and whether the High Court can interfere after proper appreciation of evidence. However, if there is no illegality involved, misreading or non-reading of evidence or whether the appellate forum was not possessed of the jurisdiction to decide the matter or the said forum had declined to exercise jurisdiction vested in it or it had acted in (sic) the irregularity, then it is clear that the appellate forum should not interfere.
6. From the limited case-law presented, by the respondent, firstly it is clear that the age when the student comes into class one is important but there are exceptions. To this I will place less importance. Secondly, as far as the medical record/certificate is concerned, it is a general practice when such documents are needed only then they are obtained and in some cases after some considerable time subject to the requirement at that particular time 2001 CLC 972 (infra) Thirdly, the lower Courts had decided upon the limitation and the jurisdiction therefore, there is no need for interference to which the decision of 2005 YLR 2114 (infra) is not attracted. Finally, as to the delay itself as was relied on in the decision in 2006 CLC 1850 (infra) only to some extent is relied on when some documents need correction then they are corrected through an application or a representation. There is a time limit of 10 years as per the Education Code, therefore the application/representation was made within time. The respondent had taken all possible measures to rectify not only the S.S. Certificate but also many other documents, which show the corrected/rectified (sic) date of which is reflected in his action to correct such documents at the appropriate time and by proper procedure.
7. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that since the respondent had exhausted his local remedy A and he had corrected his date of birth on several of the documents, which were not challenged by the petitioner and which had not adversely affected any rights of any other person or policy of the petitioner, therefore, the decisions of the lower Courts need no interference by this Court.
8. In these circumstances, the impugned judgments/decree dated 1212-2004 and 11-2-2004 respectively, passed by the lower Courts are upheld and the Civil Revision is therefore dismissed.
Parties to bear their own costs.