Atir Mahmood, J. Through this civil revision, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and decree dated 01.12.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore through which the appeal filed by the petitioners-defendants (hereinafter referred as petitioners) was dismissed which was filed against the judgment and decree dated 21.06.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Lahore whereby the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred as respondent) was decreed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief against the petitioners stating therein that the actual date of birth of the respondent is 20.10.1993 whereas the date of birth recorded in his secondary school certificate issued by the petitioners as 20.10.1992 is incorrect. It was alleged in the plaint that the respondent approached to the petitioners for the correction of his date of birth in the relevant record and for the issuance of new certificate with correct date of birth but they refused to do so. The petitioners contested the suit by filing their written statement. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues:- "1. Whether he correct date of birth of the plaintiff is 20.10.1993 instead of 20.10.1992 which is liable for correction on Secondary School Certificate and Intermediate School Certificate and plaintiff is entitled to decree for declaration with consequential relief as prayed for in the plaint? OPP.
2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is false, frivolous and vexatious? OPD.
3. Whether under Sections 29 and 31 of the Punjab Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976, the court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter? OPD
4. Whether as per order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the suit is not maintainable? OPD
5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD
6. Whether as per principle of estoppel, the suit is not maintainable? OPD.
7. Relief.
After recording oral as well as documentary evidence of the parties, learned trial court decreed the suit filed by the respondent vide judgment and decree dated 21.06.2012. Feeling dissatisfied the petitioners filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore vide judgment and decree dated 01.12.2014, hence this civil revision.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are against the law and facts of the case; that the judgments and decrees of the courts below are result of misreading and non-reading of evidence; that the learned courts below have failed to consider the fact that the admission form was filled in by the respondent himself and no other agency, school or tuition center was involved in filling up the admission form; that in view of the provisions contained in sections 29 and 31 of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore Act, 1976, the learned trial court has absolutely no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit; that the learned courts below have misappreciated the evidence with regard to the birth certified issued by the Union Council 89, Gulshan Ravi, Lahore as it was issued a few days before institution of the suit; that the learned courts below have not applied their judicious mind while passing the impugned judgments and decrees.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below are well reasoned and they have committed no illegality while producing the impugned judgments and decrees. He prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. In order to prove the case, the respondent himself appeared in the witness box as PW1 and produced PW2 Naseeb Khan to corroborate his version. In his examination-in-chief, he deposed that his date of birth is 20.10.1993. He produced Exh. P1, certificate of birth No. 580 dated 20.01.1993 issued by the Metropolitan Corporation, Lahore ( ), Exh. P2 birth certificate issued by the Government of the Punjab and Exh.P3 "B-Form" about the registration of the children less than 18 years of age. He deposed that his date of birth has wrongly been entered on his matriculation certificate as 20.10.1992. He produced copy of the certificate of metric ( ) as Exh. P4. He deposed that he requested the board/petitioners for correction of his date of birth but he was asked to obtain the decree from the civil court for correction of the date of birth. In cross-examination, he admitted that Exh.D1 is his admission form where-upon his date of birth has been written as 20.10.1992. He also admitted that on the certificate of metric, his date of birth has been recorded according to Exh. D1. He volunteered that the form was filled by the school authorities. He also admitted that at the time of his registration, his date of birth has been written as 20.10.1992. He showed his ignorance that why the board refused to correct his date of birth. He however, admitted that birth certificate and "B-Form" were issued in the year 2010. He denied the suggestion that birth certificate, "B-Form" and birth receipt were prepared to get the correction of date of birth. He also denied that his actual date of birth is 20.10.1992 which is written on the birth certificate. He admitted that against the decision of the board of refusing the correction of his date of birth, he did not file any application before the appellate forum of the board. PW2 Naseeb Khan during the cross- examination, corroborated the contents of the plaint as well as statement made by the respondent. He added that the 'form' which was forwarded by the school to the board was filled by the school authorities themselves. He stated that the respondent is his grandson whose date of birth is 20.10.1993. During cross-examination, he stated that his grandson appeared in the matriculation examination for the year 2007. He admitted that admission form was not written in his presence. He also stated that he has 14 grandsons/grand-daughters. He admitted that he did not remember the date of births of his grandsons/grand-daughters. He however, stated that he did not appear before the committee for correction of date of birth. He volunteered that he was subsequently called by the committee through a letter. He admitted that no letter was issued by the committee in his name.
8. In rebuttal, DW1 Rizwan Bashir, Junior Clerk of Matriculation Branch Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore deposed that the date of birth of the respondent/plaintiff is 20.10.1992 which was written on the admission form (Exh.D1), according to which result card and matriculation certificate ( ) was issued. In cross-examination, he admitted that the respondent/plaintiff was a regular student and the forms of regular students are received through the school. He stated that he could not tell, as to whether, the date of birth of the plaintiff on "Form- B" is correct. DW2 Muhammad Anwaar-ul-Haq Assistant, Regulation Section, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore deposed that the application of the plaintiff for correction of his date of birth was processed by the committee which was rejected after going through the contents of the application and record for the reason that in case of its correction, the age of the plaintiff was going to become less than 14 years. He produced copy of the application and decision of the committee as Exh. D2 and D3 respectively. In cross examination, he admitted that when the respondent appeared in the matriculation examination at that time, there was no restriction for the candidates of less than 14 years of age to sit in the examination. He showed his ignorance that as to whether, the plaintiff produced "Form-B" before the committee or not. He showed his ignorance, as to whether, the admission forms for the metric examination are filled by the school authorities or by the students.
9. Admittedly, while filing the suit, the respondent nowhere asserted that the admission forms for the matriculation examination were not filled by himself and were filled by the school authorities. His only assertion is that his date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate ( ) issued by the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 as 20.0.1992 is incorrect and correct date is 20.10.1993, whereas the respondent specifically asserted in the written statement that date of birth was written by himself as 20.10.1992 in his admission form for secondary school examination for the year 2007. The stance that the admission form was filled by the school authority was taken for the first time at the time of recording the evidence. The application for correction of date of birth (ExhD2) is also silent, as to why, the correction of date of birth was required. It is noted that there is a specific column No.9, in the application form, which is meant for incorporation of the reasons for the correction in the date of birth. No such reason is reflected in the said column No.9. It is now a settled proposition of law that a party cannot go beyond its pleadings. Further, no effort was made by the respondent to prove Exh.P1 ( ) by production of original record of Metropolitan Corporation, Lahore for its comparison and as such no reliance can be placed upon it. As far as Exh P2 and P3 are concerned, both these documents were issued on 09.07.2010 and 11.06.2010 respectively, much after issuance of matriculation certificate. Even otherwise Exh. P2 and P3 have been issued on the information furnished by the parents of the respondent/plaintiff and none of them appeared before the learned trial court as they could be subjected to any cross- examination. There is also no effort on behalf of the respondent to summon the record or any witness from the school attended by the respondent in order to substantiate his stand that the admission forms were filled by the school authorities. The respondent as PW1 did not utter even a single word in his examination-in-chief that his admission form was filled by the school authorities.
Though during cross examination, he volunteered that school authorities obtained their photographs and filled the forms but at the same time he admitted that no such question was made by the learned counsel, as to whether, this form filled by himself.
10. In view of the above discussion, I have no doubt in my mind that the respondent failed to prove through any cogent evidence that his actual date of birth was 20.10.1993 rather than 20.10.1992.
There is yet another aspect of the case that under sections 29 and 31 of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976, there is a specific bar upon the jurisdiction of the court and in this regard specific issue No.3 was framed and since than was a legal issue that it was incumbent upon the learned trial court to decide the same in accordance with the provisions of law but in a very slipshod manner the learned trial court decided this issue against the petitioners by stating that no reliable and cogent evidence was produced on behalf of the defendants. I am constrained to hold that to decide issue No.3, the court was under a legal obligation to examine the pleadings and evidence on record. According to the plaint or evidence led by the respondent, no malice, ill- will or any bias has been alleged against the petitioners or any staff member of the Board, therefore, the provisions of sections 29 and 31 of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976 are attracted in this case which are reproduced as under for ready reference:- "29 Bar of suit.--No act done, order made or proceeding taken by a Board in pursuance of the provisions of this Act shall be called in question in any court.
31. Protection of acts and order under the Act.--- No suit for damages or other legal proceedings shall be instituted against Government, the Controlling Authority, a Board, a committee, a member or a committee or an officer or employee of a Board in respect of anything done or purported to have been done in good faith in pursuance of the provisions of this Act and the regulations and rules made thereunder. (Emphasis provided)
In view of the above provision of law, the learned trial court had no jurisdiction to decree the suit and findings of the courts below on this issue are not sustainable and liable to be reversed.
11. For what has been discussed above, this revision petition is allowed and the judgments and decrees of the courts below are set-aside being contrary to the law and facts of the case and the suit of the respondent is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.