' SHAH JEHAN KHAN YOUSAFZAI, J.--- The Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Peshawar is aggrieved from the judgment and decree of Civil Judge-IV, Nowshera dated 11-2-2010 which was also upheld in appeal by the Additional District Judge-I, Nowshera vide judgment and decree dated 22-4-2010, has filed the instant Revision Petition.
2. Respondent No,1 filed a suit for declaration that the date of birth recorded in the record of petitioner and respondents Nos.2 and 3 as 18-2-1981 is wrong and in fact her date of birth is 18-2- 1984. She also prayed for perpetual injunction against the defendants. The said suit was contested by the petitioner/Board and the trial Court framed eight issues including the relief arising from pleadings of the parties . The petitioner produced Exh. P. W. 1/1 and Exh. P. W . 2/4. Exh.D.W.1/2 is admission form wherein the date of birth in figure is recorded 18-2-1981 but in words it is written as 18-2-1980 while Exh.P.W.2/4 is the copy of extract from the Register of Births issued by the Executive Officer Nowshera Cantonment showing her date of birth is 18-2-1984. The trial Court after taking into account discrepancy in the date of birth in words and figures and the birth certificate, decreed the suit of respondent No,1, which was also upheld in appeal, as noted above.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, who contended that concurrent findings like in the circumstances case was set aside in revision wherein the birth certificate was produced from register of 1991 while the birth took place in 1979 reported as 1999 CLC 1166 and in the case in hand, respondent No,1, who is seeking correction of date of birth allegedly took place in the year 1984 and wrongly recorded as 1981 but the birth certificate has been issued by Cantonment Board in view of the entry made in the Birth Register on 21-2-2001 and the said Register also reveals that preceding to 21-2-2001 there is entry of birth dated 17-4-1955 meaning thereby that the said Register was non-operative in between April, 1955 and February, 2001. Also relied upon 2008 SCM R 713 wherein there was difference of six years in the matriculation certificate and birth certificate.
The entry in the matriculation certificate was given effect over the entry in the birth certificate and I.D. Card.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No,1 supported the impugned concurrent findings of the two courts below and mainly contended that the Admission Form submitted to Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Peshawar, the date of birth is mentioned as 18-2-1981 but in words it is mentioned as. 18-2-1980 which ambiguity indicates that the entry of date of birth in the said Form is untrustworthy while there is no ambiguity in the birth certificate issued by the Cantonment Board.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record and perusal of cited judgments, I found that the contention of counsel for the petitioner worth reliance. The ambiguity pointed out in the admission form, noted above, appears to be omission of recording the year 1981 in the words and inadvertently recorded the year 1980 even if the date of birth recorded in words is taken into account the same will not support the claim of plaintiff/respondent No,1, who alleged her date of birth as 1984. The admission form was filled and submitted by the plaintiff/respondent No,1 herself under her signature and the said entry has been challenged very belatedly in the year 2009 for which no explanation has been offered. The school leaving certificate also reveals that the date of birth of plaintiff/respondent No,1 is C 18-2-1981 and she left the school on 22-4-1999.
8. The birth certificate Exh.P.W,1/1 relied upon by the plaintiff and accepted in the impugned judgments of two courts below is not confidence-inspiring. The perusal of said document reveals that at serial No,1064 there is an entry of date of birth of one Muhammad Azeem as 17-4-1955. Next to the said Entry bearing No,1065 shows the date of birth of plaintiff/respondent No,1 as 18-2-1984 meaning thereby that in between 17-4-1955 upto 18-2-1984 no birth date was recorded in the said register and both these entries at serial Nos.1064 and 1065 were made the same day dated 21-2- 2001 and both the entries each of the plaintiff and her father Muhammad Azeem which on the face of it appears to be a manipulated document.
7. In view of the above, I found that the concurrent findings of the two courts below are based on misreading and non-reading of evidence open to interference by this Court in its revisional powers, as held in the cited judgments. The date of birth recorded in the school where the plaintiff/respondent No,1 was studying and record of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Peshawar prevailed upon the birth certificate Exh.P.W.1/1 relied upon by the plaintiff/respondent No,
1. This revision petition is allowed, the impugned judgments and decree of the two courts below are set aside and suit of respondent No,1/plaintiff is dismissed with costs.