Atir Mahmood, J.: This civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Lahore who dismissed appeal of the petitioners and upheld the judgment and decree dated 07.02.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge Ist Class, Lahore whereby suit of the respondent-plaintiff was decreed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent (The plaintiff) instituted a suit for declaration with consequential relief against the petitioners (The defendants) stating that the correct date of birth of the respondent is 14.11.1993 but due to inadvertence, the same was mentioned in the official record of the Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education as 07.11.1991, same is wrong and incorrect. Further stated that the plaintiff approached the concerned authority for correction of his date of birth but the petitioners flatly refused to do so; before filing the suit, the respondent moved an application before the Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, Lahore (The Board) for correction of his date of birth but the same was rejected by the petitioners. The petitioners moved an application under Order VII rule 11 C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint which was contested by the respondent and the application was rejected by learned trial court vide order dated 23.11.2010. Thereafter, the petitioners-defendants contested the suit by filing written statement. Issues were framed and evidence was recorded. The learned trial court after hearing the arguments of both side, decreed the suit of the respondent-plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 07.02.2011. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment and decree the petitioners filed an appeal before the learned appellate court which was dismissed by the learned appellate court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 23.08.2011. Hence this civil revision.
3. The emphasis of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the civil court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter on the ground that there is a bar to initiate any proceedings against the petitioners against the acts done in good faith, as provided under sections 29 & 31 of the Punjab Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976 (The Act). Secondly, the suit is barred by law as the order dated 14.11.1993 passed by the board has not been assailed while filing the suit. Learned counsel argued that during the proceedings before the Board, the respondent produced a bogus register of the municipal authorities regarding his date of birth, therefore, he is not entitled for any relief from the court.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent controverted the arguments of the petitioners.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. In order to evaluate the arguments of the petitioners that no mala-fide has been alleged against the petitioners therefore suit is not entertainable under sections 29 & 31 of the Act, the paragraph No.3 of the plaint is very relevant, part of which is reproduced as under:-. {{URDU TEXT}} This paragraph has been denied evasively by the petitioners in the following manners:- '3. Denied. In reply to this para it is submitted that plaintiff has submitted the application for correction of his date of birth from 07.1.1991 to 14.11.1993 before the answering defendants. The date of birth committee after hearing the plaintiff and perusing the record has recommended to reject the application of the plaintiff and the same was rejected by the competent authority.'
Keeping the above referred paragraph in juxta position, there remains no doubt that malice on the part of the petitioners has been asserted.
7. In my opinion, the respondent was not under any obligation to specify any person of the Board with an allegation of any enmity rather it is ridiculous to presume that there would be any enmity or personal grudge of the officials of the Board against a student, who may be a minor at the relevant time. In words "
Malafide and "Bad faith" have been defined in the ninth edition of Black's Law Dictionary as under.
Bad faith, n. (17c)
1. Dishonesty of belief or purpose--the lawyer filed the pleading in bad faith---- Also termed mala fides (Mal-e-fi-deez).
" A complete catalogue of types of bad faith is impossible, but the following types are among those which have been recognized in judicial decisions: evasion of the 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. " Restatement (Second) of Contracts 205 cmt.d (1979)."
It is held that when an order is passed and an act is done without due diligence and application of judicious mind then it clearly comes within the definition of "bad faith" and "malafide". The non performance of their duties in accordance with rules regulations and principle of natural justice amounts to mala-fide on the part of the board officials. Bare reading of orders passed by the Board on application of the respondent (Exh.D3) reveals that a register of birth certificate was produced before the committee of the Board on 11.5.2010 when it was directed that the register earlier to the same as well as after the 'produced register' be requisitioned on 18.5.2010. A register starting from 29.2.1991 was produced and the board held that earlier register was a bogus one. The relevant order is written as under:-. {{URDU TEXT}} The Board has given no reason whatsoever as to how the register having entry of date of birth of the respondent was bogus one. It is held that passing such like order without any legal and lawful justification and without any basis is nothing but an act of mala-fide, therefore, the objection of the learned counsel for the petitioners that under section 29&31 of the Act the suit was not maintainable, is repelled. It is a settled principle of law that civil courts are the courts of plenary jurisdiction where the rights of any one are infringed, a civil court has ample jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter, within the framework of law.
8. As far as the facts of the case are concerned, the case of the respondent is that his date of birth was wrongly mentioned in the result card of 9th class as 07.1.1991 instead of 14.11.1993.
9. In order to prove his case, the respondent who was minor at the relevant time was represented by his father as natural guardian, who appeared in the witness box as PW.1. He deposed that when the admission form of the plaintiff was submitted then the school staff demanded form 'B' (Mark-A) issued by NADRA, which was duly provided. According to form 'B' the daughter of PW.1 namely Afifa Mumtaz is two years elder than the plaintiff whose date of birth is 07.11.1991 and the school staff wrongly incorporated her date of birth as date of birth of the plaintiff. This PW produced copy of the impugned order passed by the Board as Ex.P1, copy of 'B' Form as Mark 'A', copy of Identity Card as mark-B, copy of disputed result card of 9th class as mark-C, copy of Nikahnama as mark-D, copy of matriculation certificate of Afifa Mumtaz as mark-E, copy of birth certificate of the plaintiff as mark-F and copy of metric result card as mark-G. Beside mark 'A'
(Form-B), the most significant document is mark 'E' which is the copy of matriculation certificate of Afifa Mumtaz, the elder sister of the plaintiff showing her date of birth as 07.01.1991, which has been issued by the petitioners-Board itself, there is no denial to this fact, however, a suggestion was put to PW.1 by the petitioners that in the 'Form-B' the date of birth of Afifa Mumtaz with the plaintiff has been interchanged.
PW.1 also denied the suggestion that his application for correction of date of birth was dismissed on account of production of fictitious record. The stance of the plaintiff was corroborated by PW.2 Munir Ahmad, who stated that the plaintiff is younger than his sister. This stance was not cross examined by the petitioners side, however, a suggestion was put to him that he did not knew the date of birth of the plaintiff and his other brother and sister.
10. In rebuttal, the petitioners produced DW.1 Rehmat Ali/Junior Clerk, who produced the original admission form of the plaintiff as Exh.D-1, who showed his ignorance that immediately after receiving the result card of 9th class an application for correction of date of birth was submitted by the plaintiff. DW.2 Muhammad Anwar ul Haq/Assistant Reorganization Section produced copy of application dated 16.3.2010 for correction of date of birth as Exh.D-2 and deposed that in the opinion of the committee that the register of record of birth of union council was fictitious. During the cross-examination, he admitted that the register, which was produced by the union council, had the entry of date of birth of the plaintiff as 14.11.1993. He admitted that in the subsequent register produced by the union council, there is no entry regarding the date of birth of the plaintiff.
This statement of DW.2 is sufficient to establish that had there been a wrong entry of the date of birth of the plaintiff in the register subsequently produced before the committee of the Board then that entry must have been reflected therein. This witness also showed his ignorance about the second register as to the date from which it started and thereafter ended. Therefore, I have no doubt in my mind that the actual date of birth of the plaintiff is 14.11.1993.
11. The objection raised by the petitioners that the order dated 18.5.2010 passed by the committee of the Board has not been challenged in the suit and, therefore, suit was liable to be dismissed, is of no legal significance because, firstly, the objection was never raised before the courts below nor before this Court while filing this petition and secondly for the reason that the entire claim of the respondent is based upon the rejection of his application by the petitioners, for correction of his date of birth and there was no need to seek, specifically, the cancellation of the order 18.5.2010 passed by the petitioners.
12. In view of the above discussion, there remains no doubt in my mind that the respondent-plaintiff fully proved his case through production of cogent evidence whereas there is no rebuttal from the petitioner's side to contradict the stance of the plaintiff. Both the courts below have concurrently held against the petitioners. Therefore, this revision petition being devoid of any force is hereby d i s m i s s e d .