Concisely , the facts giving rise to the insta nt civil revision and necessary for its disposal are that respondent/plaintif f "respondent" passed her matriculation examination from the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Rawalpindi/petitioner/defendant-"petitioner" and in her Matriculation certificate and school record her wrong name Nadia Ameer and parentage "Syed Ameer Hussain Shah" (her stepfather) stood incorporated and due to such wrong entries, she was suffering hardships, problems and thus she filed a suit for declaration against the present petitioner as well as Incharge (Headmistress) Government Girls High School No.2 Jhelum with the assertion that she was born, out of wedlock of PW-2, Sakina Begum and Syed Anwar Hussain Shah and the latter has divorced her mother on 04.02.1986 and thereafter she contracted second marriage with Syed Ameer Hussain Shah. In this background, wrong name and parentage of respondent stood incorporated/inserted in her matriculation certificate and other academic testimonials. She has prayed for a decree for declaration that her correct name and parentage is Nadia Taskeen daughter of Syed Anwar Hussain Shah and wrong entries in record of petitioner are accordingly liable to be rectified. She has also prayed for mandatory injunction against the present petitioner for correction of her name and parentage i.e. Nadia Taskeen d/o Syed Anwar Hussain and accordingly issuance of a school certificate/ matriculation certificate in her favour.
2. The suit was resisted by the present petitioner mainly on the contention that respondent herself filled admission form and provided her particulars including her parentage. Maintainability of the suit has been objected to in view of section 29 & 31 of Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act 1976 ( the Act). The territorial jurisdiction of Civil Court Jhelum was also objected on the ground that office of present petitioner was situated at Rawalpindi. To resolve the factual controversy learned Civil Judge, Jhelum framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the name of father of plaintiff is Syed Anwar Hussain Shah which has been wrongly mentioned in record of defendants as Syed Ameer Hussain Shah? OPP.
2. Whether the suit of plaintif f is time barred and liable to be dismissed ? OPD.
3. Relief.
Vide judgment and decree dated 26.01.2016, learned Civil Judge, Jhelum, dismissed the suit, whereas in appeal vide judgment dated 14.3.2016 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Jhelum the suit stood decreed.
3. Present petitioner feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 14.03.2016 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Jhelum has assailed the same through the instant civil revision mainly on the premises that the same is against facts, law, result of misreading and non-reading of evidence; that findings of Civil Court, Jhelum have been disturbed arbitrarily, on fanciful grounds and in violation of section. 29 of the Act. Relying on the precedents reported as 1983 SCMR 1024 (Muhammad Rafiq versus The Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education and others) and 2002 M_LD 1966 (Lahore) (Board of Intermediate and Secondar Education Lahore throu h Secretar versus Miss Ghazala Roohil it has been maintained that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the suit.
4. Arguments heard.
5. The respondent, to substantiate her claim set in plaint, appeared as PW-1 and deposed that her real name was Nadia Taskeen and she was daughter of Syed Anwar Hussain, her similar parentage is incorporated in her birth certificate recorded in Union Council No.24 Dena District Jhelum Exh.P-3, Copy of Family Registration Certificate of NADRA, Exh.P-4 (relevant entry at serial No.2), copy of her CNIC (Exh.P-5), copy of Passport (Exh.P-6), Her wrong name Nadia Ameer and parentage Syed Ameer Hussain Shah have been incorporated in her educational testimonials and the same are liable to be rectified.
During cross-examination she rejected the suggestion that she herself provided these particulars in her admission form or at the time of school admission, to the school administration, rather she deposed that due to blunder of school administration her wrong name and parentage stood incorporated in record of the petitioner/Board. PW 2 Sakina Bibi, and PW-3 Syed Mohsin Ameer real mother and step brother of the respondent respectively supported her case. Exh.P-1 is Marriage Registration Certificate of Syed Anwar Hussain Shah and Sakina Bibi (parents of respondent) wherein date of marriage is recorded 19.06.1977. Exh.P-2 is also Marriage Registration Certificate of Syed Ameer Hussain Shah (step father of respondent) with PW-2 Sakina Bibi wherein date of nikah is mentioned 8.11.1989; whereas respondent was born on 10.10.1987 vide Birth Certificate (Exh.P-3), approximately three years prior to solemnization of second nikah of her mother with Syed Ameer Hussain Shah.
6. In rebuttal, Muhammad Iqbal Ansari Assistant Matric Branch, Rawalpindi Board as DW-1 proved the copy of Master Ledger of examination (Exh.D-1) wherein name of respondent Nadia Ameer and her parentage is recorded as Syed Ameer Hussain Shah and this entry was made as per particulars provided to the Board by Head-Mistress Govt. Girls High School No.2 Jhelum. He deposed that the petitioner has not made any addition or omission in these particulars on the basis of alleged malafide. During cross examination he tried to establish that respondent herself filled up her admission form of Matric Examination but later on, he conceded that admission form and original record of Exh.D-1/Master Ledger were not before him (on the date of statement in the Court) and that he was not custodian of that record.
Thus from the preponderance of oral evidence, fully supported by authentic documents, part of public record produced by the respondent, the version of respondent that her correct name is Nadia Taskeen and parentage Syed Anwar Hussain is fully established.
7. Unluckily in our society when a marriage is dissolved, both husband and wife dislike to name each other or even to apprise their kids with their full and accurate particulars; i.e. parentage, caste, abode, etc.; they are not even ready to face each other and permit their kids to meet their ex partners. It is also sad and common practice, in violation of Islamic Law, that in such scenario, after second marriage of the spouse the minors are persuaded to believe that they are issues from step father or step mother as the case may be and under such bonafide belief and custom, wrong particulars are incorporated in all relevant documents.
8. Under Islamic Law the issue of parentage is of prime importance which determines the legitimacy of children, responsibility of father to make payment of maintenance, introduction of children and their protection in society and lastly for the operation of law of inheritance. Thus if such wrong entries are allowed to remain in public record, it will have drastic and for reaching effects. So it is imperative for the state functionaries, government. semi government and autonomous institutions to rectify such wrong information/data to protect the public from future litigation/complications /harassment and to bring on record the truth. Avoidance of such duty by government functionaries and their sub-ordinate staff in a welfare and modern state can play havoc with the basic rights and identity of the citizens of the State.
Islam has disapproved custom of Adoption of children and ordained to call them by their real fathers.
CHAPTER AL-AHZAAB (Surah 33) Verse No. 4 & 5 of the Holy Quran are relevant and its English Translation is as under :- Verse -4 "Allah has not made for any man two hearts in its breast: nor has He made your wives whom ye divorce by Zihar your mothers: nor has He made your adopted sons your sons. Such is (only) your (manner of) speech by your mouths. But Allah tells (you) the Truth, and He shows the (right) Way".
Verse- 5 "Call them by after their fathers: that is juster in the sight of Allah. But if ye know not their father's names, (then they are) your Brothers in faith , or your friends but there is no blame on you if ye make a mistake therein: (what counts is) the intention of your hearts: and Allah is Oft-Forgiving , Most Merciful".
Reference Al-Quran-ul-Karim English Translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Qudrat Ullah and Co. Publisher .
9. In the instant case, the insistence of petitioner to keep the wrong entries in its record is clear cut malafide and lack of good faith. In celebrated precedent reported as 2016 YLR 2435(Lahore, (Chairman Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education and 2-others versus Muhammad Umair) , this Court while defining "bad faith" has held that a complete catalogue of types of bad faith is impossible, but as per judicial decisions evasion of spirit of the bargain, lack of diligence and slacking off, willful rendering of imperfect performance, abuse of a power to specify terms and interference with or failure to cooperate in the other party's performance are few stances of it. In this latest case law it was also held that as per settled principles of law, civil courts are the courts of plenary jurisdiction, where rights of any one are infringed, a civil court has ample jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter within the frame work of law. The facts of precedents reported as 1983 SCMR 1024, and 2002 MLD 1966 (Lahore) supra are distinguishable from the facts of the case in hand.
In 2008 SCMR 1047 (Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Lahore versus Usman Shaukat Ali Khan), it has been laid down that power of correction or change in date of Birth of a person is to be exercised by a Court, Tribunal or other authority with great circumspection and utmost care and only in a very exceptional case. In precedent 2008 YLR 2388 (Lahore), (Board of Intermediate and Secondary_Education Lahore Vs. Mst. Ambreen Ashraf), it has been laid down that Act done by the Board could be challenged in civil suit, only if same was done or purported to have been done with malafide intention. Such act of malafide could be substantiated by citing different instances. In another precedent 2009 MLD 1252 (Lahore), Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Sargodha versus Mst. Surriya Andleeb and another, while examining section 9 of C.P.C. read with Sec. 29 and 30 of the Act it was held that civil Court is a Court of ultimate jurisdiction and is always competent to examine whether the orders brought before it for judicial scrutiny were in accordance with legal framework and did not suffer from malafides. Similar view was taken in 2006 YLR 687 (Lahore) (Board of Intermediate and Secondar Education Vs. Shahid Javed Shaheen). Thus plea of total ouster of jurisdiction of Civil Court under the Act is repelled.
10. The respondent has only prayed for correction of wrong entry of her name and parentage and from above evidence it is fully established that the wrong entries do exist in record of petitioner. It is the imperative on the petitioner and its functionaries to rectify the same as and when it is brought into notice.
The contest of such petty matters cannot be approved. The impugned judgment has been passed by the learned Addl. District Judge in accordance with law and does not suffer from misreading and non-reading of evidence. The Court has rightly exercised the jurisdiction vested with it.
11. The civil litigation regarding correction of date of birth in between general public, including civil servants against the respective Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education is increasing day by day. In view of Rule 21-A(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules 1974, "the Rules 1974", 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 civil servant shall be permissible. In celebrated judgment reported as 2015 SCMR 456, Ali Azhar Khan Baloch and others versus Province of Sindh and others, It has been held that method of correction in the date of birth of a civil servant was provided under Rule 12-A of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules 1973 (Rule-21A(3) of The Rules 1974 is identical to this Rule), which was part of terms and conditions of service of a civil servant, as such correction in date of birth by a civil servant could not be done through a civil suit or constitutional petition, in view of the bar contained under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and civil servant had to approach the Service Tribunal for alteration in the date of birth. In the same context it was held that civil servant could not seek alteration in his date of birth at the verge of his retirement. As such the learned Civil Courts, at initial stage of such civil suits, filed by civil servants may minutely examine legal question of their jurisdiction.
12. The petitioner has also objected to the territorial jurisdiction of Civil Court Jhelum as its office is located at Divisional Headquarter Rawalpindi and its no branch/sub-office is operating at Jhelum. Admittedly, the office of Headmistress Government Girls High School No.2 Jhelum is located within the territorial jurisdiction of Civil Court Jhelum. The said office provides all information in respect of admission program, registration of students with Board, supplies admission forms to the students for holding Matric and Higher Secondary School Examinations, collects fee/late fee on behalf of the petitioner, holds and supervises examinations in the school premises, informs results of the exam on receipt of result gazette and delivers educational certificates on behalf of the petitioner and as such for all practical intents and purposes it is sub-office/ representative of petitioner in District Jhelum.
13. Under Sec.20 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908, other suits, subject to sections 16 to 19 CPC, can be instituted where defendant or any of defendants actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or where the cause of action as wholly or in part has arisen. Thus to my view, it is option of the plaintiff to file a suit either at the place where office of defendant or any of the defendants i.e. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education is located or where the cause of action has wholly or partly arisen. As such Civil Court Jhelum has ample jurisdiction to adjudicate such suits. Moreover it is desired for convenience of large number of students, old students their elders and school/college staff that sub-offices, at least at each District Head quarter, falling within territorial limits of respective Boards, are established at the earliest.
14. The civil revision is time barred for eight days.Petitioner has moved application u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 for condonation of delay mainly on the ground that there is slight delay in filing civil revision due to some "un-avoidable circumstances" but the same had not been explained either in the petition or affidavit or during course of arguments. Reliance has been placed on the precedent reported as PLD 2012 Supreme Court 400 Hafeez Ahmad and others versus Civil Judge, Lahore and others, to maintain that proceedings before revisional court, being proceedings between the Court and Court, for ensuring strict adherence to law and safe administration of justice, so High Court and District Courts are competent to condone the delay for filing revision petition so that revisional court may not be deprived of its corrective and supervisory jurisdiction. Whereas learned counsel for the respondent has relied on recent precedent reported as PLD 2016 Supreme Court 872 Khushi Muhammad vs. Mst. Fazal Bibi, wherein it was laid down that, "there was no scope in law of limitation for any equitable or ethical construction. Justice, equity and good conscience did not override the law of limitation. Object of law of limitation was to prevent stale demands and so it ought to be construed strictly. It was further held that, "the hurdles of limitation could not be crossed under the guise of any hardships or imagined inherent discretionary jurisdiction of the court.
Ignorance, negligence, mistake or hardship did not save limitation, nor does poverty of the parties.". In the light of this celebrated precedent, the prayer made for condonation of delay cannot be allowed, as the petitioner has failed to explain the delay of each and every day. So the revision petition being time barred is liable to be dismissed on this score alone.
Consequently , instant civil revision petition is dismissed.