HAIDER ALI KHAN, J.- Through the instant revision petition Shafiullah, the petitioner herein, has called in question the judgement and decree dated 23.7.2014 of the learned District Judge/Zilla Qazi, Dir Lower at Timergara whereby appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 11.3.2011 of the learned Senior Civil Judge/A'ala Illaqa Qazi, Dir Lower, has been dismissed.
2. Precise and relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit against the respondents/defendants for declaration to the effect that his correct date of birth is 01.01.1959 whereas the respondents have wrongly entered the same as 01.01.1956, which is liable to be rectified.
Respondents/ defendants were summoned who appeared before the trial Court through representatives/counsel and contested the petitioner's suit by filing three sets of written statements. Thereafter, the parties produced their respective evidence on the issues framed on the basis of divergent pleading. At conclusion of the trial, suit of the petitioner was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 11.3.2011. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred appeal which was also dismissed by the learned appellate Court on 29.2.2012 on the point of limitation. The petitioner then filed civil revision petition before this Court which was allowed on 14.4.2014 and the case was remanded back to the appellate forum for deciding the same afresh on merits. On remand of the case, the learned appellate Court once again dismissed appeal of the petitioner vide judgment and decree dated 23.7.2014. Hence, the instant revision petition.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. In light of pleadings and facts on the record, stance of the petitioner is that his correct date of birth according to primary school record is 01.1.1959 but the respondents have wrongly recorded his date of birth as 01.1.1956 in their record and they are bound to correct the same.
On the contrary, stance of the respondents is that date of birth of the petitioner as per their record is 01.1.1956, hence, suit of the petitioner is baseless.
Record shows that according to the Secondary School Certificate (SSC), National Identity Card and Admission Form of the petitioner, available on the record as Ex.Pw-1/2 and Ex.Pw-1/3 respectively, date of birth of the petitioner is 01.1.1956. There is also a copy of the relevant page of Admissions and Withdrawal Register of the Middle School wherein the petitioner has been shown at serial No.169 and his date of birth against his name has been entered as 01.1.1956. Above is one set of reliable and trustworthy documentary evidence pertaining to public record which goes against the stance of the petitioner.
On the other hand, the petitioner has relied on Register of Admissions and Withdrawal (Annexure-AI of the trial Court record) alongwith a certificate issued by Headmaster GPS, Saddo and Admission form Ex.Pw-4/D-1. Mr. Ali Haider ADEO, who was present in person on the date of arguments in compliance with the directions of this Court, also produced original registers/record pertaining to the petitioner for examination of the Court. Physical scrutiny of the entire original record and Annexure-AI referred to above reveals that the petitioner has been shown at Serial No.13 and against his name the date of birth has been written as 01.1.1959 but at Serial No.5 on the same page there is entry of Sharifullah whose date of birth has been shown as 01.1.1956 and Muhammad Khan has been entered in the column of his parentage. However, overwriting and erasing in respect of the entries of the said Sharifullah are visible besides, the entries made in respect of Serial No.13 i.e Shafiullah also appear to have been carried out with different handwriting than that of the remaining students. It is also noticeable that on the same page each student has been assigned his respective serial number for example the students namely Abdullah, Muhammad Ishaq and Aziz-ur-Rahim have been shown at Serial No. 2, 3 & 7 respectively whereas the petitioner is at Serial No.13. Moreso, in the list of students promoted from primary to middle, the same serial numbers of the aforementioned three students have been repeated i.e Abdullah is at Serial No.168/2, Muhammad Ishaq at Serial No.177/3 and Aziz-ur-Rahim at Serial No. 176/7 but strange enough that the petitioner Shafiullah has been mentioned at Serial No.169/5 contrary to the above order as he should have been shown at Serial No.169/13 because he was at Serial No.13 in the Admissions and Withdrawal Register retained by the primary school. This fact also refers to the modification carried out in respect of entries related to Sharifullah and strengthens the belief of this Court that there is something wrong with the entries at Serial No.5 and Serial No.13.
So far authenticity of Ex.Pw-4/D-1 is concerned whereon the petitioner relies, the same document is admission form and clearly shows that overwriting has been carried out in respect of figure 9 of 1959 and Urdu word which alteration is apparent on the face of the mentioned document.
Thus, from the analysis of the above referred two sets of pro and contra documentary evidence it becomes crystal clear that the actual date of birth of the petitioner is 01.1.1956 and the evidence produced by the petitioner is not convincing rather the same creates a doubt in a prudent mind, hence, the decree prayed for cannot be awarded on such like doubtful evidence.
5. Without prejudice to the above, the petitioner obtained his Secondary School Certificate in 1974 wherein his date of birth has been shown as 01.1.1956 and also got his computerized National Identity Card in 2004 but filed the present suit on 22.7.2010 which is hopelessly time barred. Record shows that the petitioner submitted form in NADRA office for obtaining his CNIC which also bears his date of birth as 01.01.1956. On the basis of the said form duly filled, signed and thumb impressed by the petitioner, computerised identity card was issued to him. The petitioner has woke up after a deep slumber prevailing over more than three decades and has badly failed to justify the same through convincing evidence. Admittedly, the petitioner is a police officer and there is no reason to believe that he was unaware of the alleged wrong entry regarding his date of birth, hence, both the Courts below have committed no illegality while dismissing suit of the petitioner on the point of limitation as well apart from merits.
6. In addition to the above, the petitioner is not competent to seek correction of his date of birth without sanction of the Government. In this regard the learned A.A.G. referred to Note. 2 of Rule 7.3 of Punjab Financial Rules, Volume-I, which is reproduced herein below for convenience sake:- "Note 2.--corrections in the dates of birth already recorded in the Service Record should not be made without the sanction of the Government in the case of officers and of the Head of the Department or Commissioner of Division in the case of officials. Against every such correction a note should be made of the number and date of the order authorizing it, and a copy of the order should be pasted in the Service Record".
The correction if even made out in accordance with the above Rule will be deemed to be conclusive unless applied for within two years from the date of entry into Government Service which legal obligation is also lacking in the present case. In this regard reliance is placed on the judgments of the apex Court reported as "Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Education Department, Lahore Vs. Prof. Mrs. Jamida Malik (1999 PLC (C.S) 389) and "Prof. Dr. Muhammad Aslam Baloch Vs. Government of Balochistan through Secretary Health Department and others (2014 SCMR 1723).
7. In view of what has been discussed above, the impugned judgments of both the Courts below are based on proper appraisal of the evidence wherein no illegality or irregularity and misreading or non-reading of evidence could be found, therefore, the same are maintained and the instant revision petition, being meritless, is hereby dismissed.