' HABIB-UR-RAHMAN SHAIKH, J.---Appellant Muhammad Kamran Behan son of Haji Rehmatullah Behan through this IInd Appeal has called in question judgment and decree dated 12-11-2011, passed by learned IVth Addl. District Judge, Karachi (Central) in Civil Appeal No.96 of 2011 and judgment and decree dated 22-4-2011, passed by learned Ist Senior Civil Judge, Karachi (Central) in Family Civil Suit No.832 of 2010, (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned judgments and decrees"), whereby the civil suit so also the Civil Appeal filed by appellant before both the Courts below were dismissed. Both the Courts below categorically opined in their judgments that the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff was barred by section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 as in the suit the appellant/plaintiff himself admitted in paragraphs 3 and 4 of his Plaint, as under:-- "3. That plaintiff after getting primary education in the interior of Sind, joined N.J.V. High School, Karachi and passed his matriculation examination held in the month of March, 1982 as regular candidate under Roll No.84833 from Board of Secondary Education, Karachi (the defendant), thus was awarded and issued Matriculation Certificate No.ATS 082322 dated 5th August, 1984 (Copy of Certificate is filed and marked as annexure-A).
4. That the plaintiff family has got strong political background and presently the plaintiff is appointed as an Advisor to the Chief Minister, Government of Sindh."
2. Learned counsel for appellant/ plaintiff contends that both the lower ' Courts have not framed the issues which were mandatory according to law and both the Courts below have not appreciated the legal aspect of the case but the learned counsel is not able to reply as to what is the duty of the appellant/plaintiff and whether any party, on his own choice, at any time/stage approach any Court for changing of his name. The question arises whether the Court is bound to give the relief, the answer would be No, because each and every person is bound with the Law to act in a fair manner. Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 so also Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908 are reproduced as under:-- Section 42: "42. Discretion of Court as to , declaration of status or right: Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any rights as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the Court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief.
' Bar to such declaration: Provided that no Court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so."
Article 120: {{TABLE}} Description of suitPeriod of LimitationTime from which period begins to run 1 2 3
120. Suit for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in this scheduleSix yearsWhen the right to sue accrues. {{TABLE}}
3. The persons are bound to come with clean hands and according to law before the Court but in the present appeal the appellant/plaintiff has miserably failed to bring his case within the ambit of Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 as well as under Article 120 of the. Limitation Act, 1908.
4. In the present appeal the appellant/plaintiff continuously introduced himself as Muhammad Kamran and sought admissions in the School(s) as well as College in his original name i.e. Qurban Ali. When the appellant/plaintiff was appointed as Advisor to Chief Minister then he presumed that his name (Qurban Ali) does not matche with his personality and sounds like an uneducated person, therefore, he thought that his name should be changed without any cogent reason and without applying his mind whether law of land permits him to change his name in his own accord and wish. The appellant/ plaintiff used his influence to get change his name in the primary school etc. And not adopted the legal procedure by changing his name through proper channel, which was provided in the Rules of the respondent-Board. When he was advised by someone else to change his name through Court of law then he filed suit without arising any cause of action. The case-law relied upon by learned counsel for appellant/plaintiff in the case of RAFIQ AKHTAR CHAUDHRY v. AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVT. (PLD 1982 SC (AJ&K) 124) is not relevant with the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. In the present case, appellant/plaintiff was heard then the matter was decided and he also filed an appeal before Ist Appellate Court thereafter he approached this Court. He was not condemned unheard. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the unreported case of MUHAMMAD HAMDAN SHEIKH v. THE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, NAZIMABAD, KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS, (C.P.L.A. No.464-K/1997) which was decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 13-11-1998, observed as under:- "2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the courts below have fallen in error in not allowing him to change his name from Muhammad Shariq Sheikh to Muhammad Hamdan Sheikh.
3. We have heard the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents/caveator. We find that the Courts below have rightly exercised their jurisdiction in dismissing the claim of the petitioner. Suffice it to say that the suit of the petitioner was not maintainable as the relief sought by him would not fall within the ambit of section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. The impugned order is unexceptionable warranting no interference.
4. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed and leave declined."
5. I am fortified with the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid unreported case and is of the considered view that the impugned judgments, passed by both the Courts below, do not warrant any interference. Accordingly, this Ilnd Appeal is dismissed.