1. ' AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.---Through this Civil Revision Application the applicant Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation has challenged Judgment dated 29-7-2011 and Decree dated 19-11-2011 passed by learned IInd Additional District Judge, Malir Karachi whereby he dismissed Civil Appeal No,15 of 2011 filed by the applicant and upheld the Judgment/Decree dated 18-1-2011 and 22-1-2011 respectively passed by learned 1st Senior Civil Judge, Malir Karachi whereby he decreed Civil Suit No,80 of 2009 filed by the respondent.
2. ' Precisely, the facts of the case are that the respondent Mohammad Ali son of Ali Gohar filed a civil suit against the applicant for declaration in respect of correction in his date of birth stating therein that he was appointed on 3-6-1977 as driver in Transport Department of Pakistan Steel Mills, Karachi and later on he was confirmed in the same capacity. During the tenure of his service, the respondent/plaintiff came to know that his date of birth has wrongly been written in the service record as 21-12-1951 instead' of 1956. On coming to know about such fact, the respondent made several requests to the applicant to correct his date of birth in their record, but they declined to do so vide their letter dated 17-7-2007. On the refusal of the applicant to correct his date of birth, the respondent served a legal notice upon the applicant on 30-3-2009. Along with the notice he annexed photocopy of his new I.D. Card showing his year of birth as 1956, however on the inaction of the applicant, he filed civil suit, as stated above.
3. ' The applicant contested the matter and filed written statement denying the allegations levelled in the plaint by the respondent. They submitted that at the time of joining/appointment the respondent never submitted the documents mentioned in the plaint. The domicile certificate shows that the same was issued in the year 1980 whereas the respondent was appointed in 1977, as such the claim of submission of the said document at the time of joining is belied. It was further stated that in his application for appointment dated 7-4-1977 the respondent mentioned his age as 25 years and in the pro forma of joining report he mentioned his date of birth as 20-12-1951 and after 30 years of service he applied for correction in the date of birth which is against the law, therefore such request was not acceded to. According to them, no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff to file the civil suit which is liable to be dismissed.
4. ' On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed 6 issues and after recording of evidence and hearing the counsel for the parties, the suit was decreed vide judgment dated 18-1-2011. The said judgment was assailed in appeal which was also dismissed, hence this civil revision.
5. ' I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have gone through the material available on the record.
6. ' Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are erroneous and based on conjectures and surmises and not on the evidence adduced by the parties. He further contended that the courts below have acted with illegality and material irregularity and have come to wrong conclusion thereby causing grave miscarriage of justice to the applicant. According to him, the courts below have misread the evidence and have not properly appreciated the same. He raised legal plea that the courts below have no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for correction of date of birth under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. He relied upon the case-law reported in 2007 SCM R 66. SBLR 2009 Sindh 115. 1994 SCM R 1633 and PLD 2006 SC 602. He prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgments and decrees.
7. ' On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgments and decrees contending that the same are in accordance with the law and sound and cogent reasons have been assigned for the findings arrived at by the courts below. He further contended that this revision application is not maintainable against the concurrent o findings. According to him, the courts below have not committed any illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error so as to render the impugned judgments and decrees as null and void. He further contended that the claim of the respondent is based on important documents i,e, his old and new NIC which has always been given due weight while determining the factum of age of a person. He further contended that execution application has already been allowed, as such after the execution application having been allowed, this revision application is not maintainable. He prayed for dismissal of the revision application.
8. So far as the plea taken by the applicant that the declaratory suit regarding correction of date of birth is not maintainable is concerned, suffice it to refer to case-law reported in 1994 M LD 2208 wherein the declaratory suit seeking correction of date birth was held to be maintainable.
9. So far as merit of the case is concerned, the respondent/plaintiff in support of his claim has filed his original old and new N.I.Cs. Bearing No,518-56-220878 and 42501-1577449-7 respectively wherein his year of birth is mentioned as 1956. The applicant/defendant has miserably failed to challenge the genuineness and/or authenticity of these cards. On the other hand, the applicant/defendant has relied upon the joining report of the respondent wherein his year of birth is mentioned as 1951. However, in cross-examination the witness of the applicant admitted, "It is correct to suggest that joining report is not the handwriting of the plaintiff." He further admitted in the cross-examination that date of birth of the respondent/plaintiff mentioned in the Medical Card issued by one of the departments of the defendant is 1956. He further admitted that in the insurance paper also date of birth of the respondent is disclosed as 1956.
10. So far as the plea that after 30 years of service the respondent applied for correction in the date of birth which is not permissible and consequently the suit for such purpose was barred by limitation is concerned, the respondent has stated that he came to know about his wrong date of birth in the year 2007 when he applied for loan and the applicant/defendant informed him that he is going to retire in the year 2011 according to his date of birth i,e, 1951. On having become aware of such fact, the respondent immediately applied for correction in his date of birth. He further deposed that when he applied for such correction, the applicant declined to make the correction which fact has also been admitted by the applicant's witness in his cross-examination by saying, "It is correct to suggest that according to memorandum dated 17-7-2007, we refused to correct the date of birth of the plaintiff." "It is correct to suggest that we also refused the same request of the plaintiff in the year 2008."
11. ' From above, it is clear that as soon as the respondent came to know about his wrong date of birth, he immediately applied for its correction. The plaintiff has failed to establish that the respondent was in the knowledge of such fact prior to such time. In this view of the matter, the plea that the suit is barred by limitation is devoid of force.
12. ' There is absolutely no cavil to the legal proposition laid down in the case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant, however, the facts of the cited cases and that of the present case are distinguishable. In the case reported in 2007 SCM R 66, it was a case of civil servant and on the basis of Rule 12-A of Civil Servants (Appointment). Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, it was held that the date of birth once recorded at the time of joining Government service shall be final and thereafter no alteration in the date of birth of a civil servant shall be permissible. The case reported in 1994 SCM R 1633 also related to civil servant, so also the case reported in PLD 2006 SC
602. The case reported in SBLR 2009 Sindh 115 related to an Additional Judge of this Court (as she then was). The present case does not pertain to the government/civil servant as admittedly the respondent is an employee of Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation. Even otherwise, the applicant/defendant viz. Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation has not produced any material or referred any specific provision from the Rules/Regulations governing the terms and conditions of employees of Pakistan Steel Mills which provides a bar on making a claim regarding correction of date of birth of its employees.
13. Yet there is another aspect of the case. It is now well settled that revisional jurisdiction of this Court has, very limited scope and it can be exercised only in those cases where subordinate court has exceeded its jurisdiction or has declined to exercise jurisdiction or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction in a manner contrary to law or in a manner not warranted by law. In the case reported in 2001 SCM R 789 honourable Supreme Court held as under:-- "It is now firmly settled law that findings of facts recorded by the First Appellate Court based on appraisal of evidence and raising of inferences in its discretion could not be interfered with under section 115 C.P.C. Merely because a different view was also possible to be taken, therefore, the impugned judgment of the High Court suffers from want of jurisdiction."
14. ' In another case reported in PLD 1994 SC 291, the honourable Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact of two courts below could not be disturbed by High Court either in second appeal or in revisional jurisdiction unless Courts below while recording finding of fact had either misread the evidence or had ignored any material piece of evidence on record or the same was perverse-Jurisdiction of High Court to interfere with concurrent findings of fact in revisional jurisdiction was narrower, it could only interfere with the order of subordinate Court on ground that Court below had assumed jurisdiction which did not vest in it, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law or that Court below had acted with material irregularity affecting its jurisdiction in the case and the High Court under revisional jurisdiction can only correct jurisdictional errors of Courts below---Fact that High Court while reappraising evidence on record reached a conclusion different from that arrived at by two Courts below, such fact could never be a ground justifying interference with a finding of fact muchless a concurrent finding of fact recorded by Courts below on basis of evidence produced before them.
15. ' Upshot of the above discussion is that there is no merit in this Revision Application which is accordingly dismissed in limine along with pending application. in limine.