1. ' TUFAIL H. EBRAHIM, J.---Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Judgment dated 10-4-2010 passed by the Additional and District Judge Karachi East in Civil Appeal No,48 of 2010 against the Judgment and Decree passed by II Senior Civil Judge Karachi East in Suit No,976 of 2009, this Civil Revision application has been preferred.
2. ' Brief facts as per the record are that the applicant has been on various dates issued Pakistani Passports No, AG 357351 issued on 16th May, 1978, No, D 069775 issued on 9th December, 1987, H 859769 issued on 15th May, 1992, No, E 321489 issued on 23rd September, 1997, No, KB 659451, issued on 8th February, 2003, wherein it has been shown that the applicant was born at Dhoraji (India) in the year 1946.
3. ' The applicant did not attend any formal schooling and migrated to Pakistan in the year 1950 and got married to Hanif Muhammad Godil and now is a grandmother. The applicant was issued Pakistani National Identity Card No,517-54-204791 in which her date of birth has been stated to be as 11-2-1954. It is an admitted position that the applicant holds dual nationality of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and United Kingdom and she has also been issued two British Passports No,013012171 and No,304222565 respectively on 5-5-1994 and on 23-12-2004.
4. ' The applicant visited the office of respondent No,2 National Data Base and Registration Authority (NADRA) and applied for issuance of Computerized National Identity Card. The applicant provided all the requisite information to ,the staff of the respondent No, 2, besides provided the correct date of birth i.e. 1-1-1946. That while processing for data collection in respect of issuance of the CNIC of the applicant in respondent No,2's office, the staff deputed by the NADRA filled the form in data base directly on computer and after completion of all the formalities print out was handed over to the Applicant for attestation and re-submission in their office. It was alleged that due to some mistake the officer of the respondent No,2 incorrectly recorded the date of birth as 11-2-1954, as appearing in the old NIC. The applicant could not realize the mistake after the receipt of the printout and without seeking correction immediately submitted the attested form with respondent No,2, who in turn issued the CNIC No,42201-5691937-0 on or about January, 2003 with the date of birth showing 11-2-1954.
5. ' The applicant never realized the said mistake nor ever needed to, but the mistake was realized when the Applicant applied for computerized readable Pakistani passport as she was informed by the officer concerned -that the date of birth shown in the CNIC is not what has been stated in the application form. The officer directed the applicant to get the CNIC corrected and was finally advised to file a suit.
6. ' The applicant filed Suit No,976 of 2009 on 10-8-2009 before the Court of IInd Senior Civil Judge Karachi East with the following prayers:--
(a) That the plaintiffs actual date of birth recorded in the passport issued by the defendant No,1 as well as Home Office of the UK with date of birth as 1-1-1946 is correct, genuine and the date of birth recorded in the record of the defendant No,2 as 11-2-1954 is incorrect and an outcome of error, mistake and negligence of the concerned authority the defendant No,2.
(b) That defendant No,2 be ordered/directed to incorporate/ substitute in their record the correct date of birth of the plaintiff as 1-1-1946 instead of 11-2-1954 which be corrected accordingly with further orders that corrected computerized National Identity Card be issued to the plaintiff.
7. ' Although the claim of the applicant had gone unrebutted and the applicant had filed ex parte proof in support of her claim, but the suit was dismissed by the trial Court on the grounds that the passports produced by the applicant cannot be said to be a cogent and reliable evidence to prove that the actual and correct date of birth of the applicant when the same were issued on the basis of old NIC of the applicant bearing the date of birth.
8. ' The applicant filed Civil Appeal No,48 of 2010 in the Court of Ist Additional District Judge Karachi East, who did not consider the fresh documentary evidence filed after filing of the Appeal by the applicant which was also dismissed on the grounds that fresh evidence could not be produced at this belated stage and the age shown in the National Identity Card shall hold the field unless rebutted by equally good or better evidence and there was no misreading or non-reading of evidence by the trial Court.
9. ' The learned counsel of the applicant has argued that the applicant is a dual national of Pakistan and United, Kingdom and is holding Pakistani Passport as well as British Passport. In all the old Pakistani Passport her place of Birth has been shown as Dhoraji India and date of Birth has been shown as 1946. Similarly in the British Passports her place of birth has been shown as Dhoraji and date of birth has been shown as 1-1-1946. However, the mistake appearing as to date of birth in her old NIC and Computerized NIC were never noted, and realized only when the applicant needed computerized readable Pakistani Passport and was informed by the officer at the Passport Office.
10. ' Per learned counsel the trial Court has wrongly dismissed the suit and should have considered the ex parte proof supported with documentary evidence comprising of all the Pakistani and British passports and more so since the said contentions had gone un-rebutted, but on the contrary the trial court wrongly came to the conclusion that the passports produced by the applicant cannot be said to be a cogent and reliable evidence to prove that the actual and correct date of birth of the applicant when the same were issued on the basis of old NIC of the applicant bearing the date of birth.
11. ' Per learned counsel there was misreading and non-reading of evidence on the part of the learned appellate court. There was enough documentary evidence to establish the correct date of birth of the applicant. Per learned counsel the appellate court should have considered the subsequent evidence filed by the applicant as the applicant prior to filing of the appeal was not in possession of the same and had obtained the documents after filing of the appeal. The said document has been issued by the local authority of Government of Gujarat (India) and Hospital and Dhoraji Association and there could not be any doubt about the veracity of the said documents and even if there was any the same could have been verified.
12. ' That Deputy Manager (Legal) on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 had appeared and has stated that as per the Policy of the respondent No,2 in connection with age modification beyond three years one of the following documents is required:--
(a) Matric Certificate
(b) Service Record
(c) Court Decree ' However, in the said Policy issued on 27-6-2008 it has been stated that for Age Change Beyond Three Years (NICOPs) in addition to the above documents, valid Pakistani/Foreign Passports will also be accepted.
13. ' I have heard the learned counsel and examined the documents available on record. It is my opinion that there has been apparent misreading and non-reading of evidence on the part of the trial Court and the appellate court due to which arbitrary and illegal orders have been passed resulting in grave injustice to the applicant. The appellate court should have considered the subsequent documents filed by the applicant as they were not in possession of the same and had obtained from local authority in India and prima facie there was no doubt as to the genuineness of the said documents and their admission should not have been refused on technical grounds. That both the Courts failed to appreciate the fact that the passport of the applicant had been renewed by the competent authorities on more than three occasions and concerned issuing authority did not raise any objection regarding the date of birth of the applicant. There is no reason to belief that the date of birth of the applicant as appearing in the passports issued by the Government of Pakistan as well as the Government of Great Britain are managed, forged and fabricated or the applicant had filed the suit for any mala fide or ulterior reasons.
14. ' There is no mala fide or any ulterior motive on the part of the applicant. The applicant is neither claiming any right in service nor having any other interest of whatsoever nature in seeking the correction of date of birth which would not adversely affect any right of any other person or be burden upon the exchequer in any manner. The applicant as a citizen of Pakistan has a right to obtain computer readable Pakistani Passport and is therefore entitled to rectify the mistake as to her date of birth appearing in her CNIC from 11-2-1954 to 1-1-1946.
15. ' For the reasons as aforesaid I allow this Civil Revision Application and set aside both the orders dated 20-1-2010 passed by the Ind Senior Civil Judge, Karachi East in Suit No, 976 of 2009 and order dated 10-4-2010 in Civil Appeal No, 48 of 2010 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge and direct the respondent No, 2 to rectify the mistake as to date of birth appearing on the Computerized National Identity Card from 11-2-1954 to 1-1-1946.