' Through instant revision petition, the petitioner Fahad Iqbal, has questioned the judgment and decree dated 18.09.2014 passed by the learned District Judge, Kohat vide which the judgment and decree dated 08.07.2014 of learned trial Court of Civil Judge-IV, Kohat was maintained and appeal was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that present petitioner/plaintiff instituted civil suit for seeking decree of declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant/respondent to the effect that his actual and correct date of birth is 16.12.1987 and in the academic record maintained by defendant it has been wrongly incorporated as 26.02.1989 which entry is void and ineffective upon the rights of plaintiff and is liable to correction as averred in the plaint.
3. Respondent/defendant was summoned, on appearance written statement was submitted by his counsel. On divergent pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court framed the following issues:--
(i) Whether the plaintiff has got a cause of action?
(ii) Whether the suit is within time?
(iii) Whether this Court has got the jurisdiction to entertain the present suit?
(iv) What is the correct date of birth of plaintiff?
(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree as prayed for?
4. After framing of issues both the parties recorded their respective evidence as they wished to prove their respective stance and upon conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court after hearing arguments of both the learned counsel had dismissed the suit.
5. The petitioner/plaintiff being remaining dissatisfied from the order, judgment and decree of the learned trial Court preferred regular civil appeal before the Court of learned District Judge, Kohat.
' The learned appellate Court also after hearing dismissed the appeal vide impugned judgment and decree dated 18.09.2014, hence, the instant revision petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the actual date, month and year of birth of petitioner is 16.12.1987 and same has been incorporated in CNIC with NADRA and in the Passport but in academic record of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education hereinafter called BISE, Kohat it has been wrongly incorporated as 26.02.1989; petitioner is nowadays working and earning his livelihood at Qatar a foreign country and has a private job there; has proved his case through evidence and has no mala fide behind suit for correction of birth record; not government employee either in federal or provincial or district governments; both the learned Courts below, had not exercised jurisdiction properly and had non-suited plaintiff/ petitioner by not considering evidence and law.
7. Conversely the learned counsel for respondent/defendant vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for petitioner by arguing that both the learned Courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence and relevant law and had correctly exercised jurisdiction vested in them; suit is not maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary parties; as the Secondary School Certificate i.e, SSC (Matric Certificate) issued by BISE, Kohat alongwith entries with regard to date, month and year of birth in the high school record are based upon high school admission record, same data has been incorporated in the high school as well as in the Board's record according to school leaving certificate issued by the primary school concerned and the plaintiff neither challenged the primary school record, nor has imp leaded the headmaster of that respective school; moreover, the suit of petitioner was filed badly time barred; the learned counsel for petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or wrong exercise of jurisdiction; and submitted for dismissal of petition.
8. Valuable arguments, of both the learned counsel heard, considered and record perused.
9. From the perusal of record it reveals, that petitioner seeks decree for declaration of date, month and year incorporated in matric certificate issued from BISE, Kohat as null and void and prayed for relief of correcting it by incorporating 16th as date of birth, December as month and year as 1987.
10. In support of his stance plaintiff produced record keeper of Passport office as PW-1 who produced printed application form of' Passport of plaintiff which is placed on record as Ex-PW-1/1 wherein date, month and year is written as 16.12.1987.
11. Muhammad Iqbal his real father as his attorney appeared in the witness-box as PW-2 who produced copies of CNIC as Ex-PW-2/2 and copy of Passport as Ex-PW-2/3.
12. While DW-1 Shaban Hameed appeared on behalf of Chairman BISE, Kohat and produced record pertaining to matric certificate issued by said Board which is placed on record as EX.DW 1/1 wherein the date, month and year of birth has been incorporated as 26.2.1989.
13. From the perusal of record it divulges that it is difference of two years suit is about enhancement of two years and for proving that he was actually born on 16.12.1987 the evidence led by plaintiff is deficient and defective as plaintiff was required to produce the record of primary school where plaintiff got first admitted. Plaintiff had neither produced record of School Leaving Certificate nor had impleaded Headmaster of primary school as defendant.
14. Muhammad Iqbal attorney for plaintiff has not produced documentary evidence in his possession regarding form 'Bay' when he himself got prepared his CNIC through which the actual date, month and year of birth relating to the plaintiff and his other children could have been brought on record for the comparison of birth year. Moreover, record of relevant union council to whom plaintiff or PW-2, his father belongs has not been produced.
15. If wrong entry about birth record has been made in any concerned department then it is continued wrong and could be rectified by plaintiff invoking the jurisdiction of Civil Court upon getting knowledge so plaintiff has rightly knocked the door of the Court to get relief for eliminating the adverse effects of wrong incorporation in the school as well as record of other departments about birth date etc, hence, with all respect pleadings are defective.
16. So for the ends of justice judgment and decree of both the learned Courts below are set aside and case is remanded to the trial Court with the direction to allow plaintiff/petitioner to submit amended plaint by impleading necessary parties in the light of above discussion and decide the case according to law as early as possible in view of National Judicial Policy.
17. This petition is disposed of in above terms with no order as to cost.
(R.A.) .