1. ' ABDUL RAHMAN AURANGZEB, J.---Through this civil revision, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and decree dated 19.03.2015 passed by learned Addl: District Judge, whereby appeal filed by the petitioner-appellant was dismissed and judgment and decree dated 14.03.2014 passed by learned trial Court was upheld, whereby the suit for declaration with consequential relief filed by the respondent-plaintiff was decreed.
2. 2.Succinctly, the terse facts giving rise to this civil revision are that the respondent appeared in the Secondary School Autumn Examination 1997 under Roll No,22549 as a private candidate and got through the said examination. It is pleaded by the respondent that his date of birth in the admission form of secondary school examination was fallaciously written as 06.12.1978, the wrong date of birth, instead of actual date as 06.12.1983. The prayer has been made that petitioner- defendant be directed to issue certificate by making correction of date of birth as 06.12.1983 instead of 06.12.1978. The petitioner/defendant vehemently contested the suit by filing a written statement. Learned trial Court after framing the issues, recording the evidence and hearing the parties, opted to decree the suit in favour of respondent-plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 14.03.2014. There-after, appeal against the said judgment and decree filed by the petitioner- defendant was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 19.03.2015. Hence, the instant civil revision.
3. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that both Courts below failed to examine the evidence and totally mis-read and non-read the same. He further pointed out findings on issue No,3 with regard to jurisdiction of Civil Court, was not properly adjudicated. Lastly, he prayed for dismissal of the suit of the respondent-plaintiff.
4. 4.Contrary to it, the learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently resisted this civil revision and supported the judgments and decree of learned lower Courts by arguing that both Courts below have rightly rendered their decisions in accordance with law, therefore, instant civil revision is liable to be dismissed.
5. 5.Arguments heard and record perused.
6. 6.The controversial question of the case, revolves around the date of birth of the respondent- plaintiff and in this regard issue No,1 has been framed, therefore, onus to prove this issue is upon the respondent. So in order to resolve this issue, I find that the petitioner referred the matter to Medical Superintendent of the Services Hospital, Lahore, who constituted a Medical Board comprising upon five Doctors. The Medical Board after examining the respondent, gave a joint opinion/report regarding his age vide Endst. No,SMB/ MED-530/S.H, dated 21.03.2009, which is reproduced as under:-- "On physical, Radiological and Dental Examination, the Board is of the unanimous opinion that age of Akbar Ali son of Sadiq Ali is more than 25-years."
7. ' The above said observation/opinion (Mark Ex.C-1) of Medical Board, was believed by learned trial Court while rendering the decision on issue No,1 that age of the respondent is more than 25 years.
8. 7.In pursuance of letter No,2316/ Recog, dated 25.02.2009, the opinion of the Medical Board Examination is that the respondent is more than 25 years of age. This opinion of the Ossification test reflected that the age of the respondent falls within the limits of 25 to 26 years, whereas contention of petitioner is that date of birth of respondent i,e, 06.12.1978, which cannot be matched with the authenticated medical opinion. If the assertion of petitioner be deemed correct then the result of opinion should be more than 29-years. But the Ossification test which was conducted on the instructions of the petitioner, favours date of birth of respondent as derived by the Medical Board Examination. This result of Ossification test was not rebutted by the petitioner through any documentary evidence.
9. 8.In addition to this, respondent has also relied upon other documents i,e, Original Birth Certificate (Ex.P-1), Original NIC (Ex.P-2) and Original Matriculation Certificate (Ex.P-3). Perusal of Ex.P-1 as well as Ex.P-2 shows that actual date of birth of respondent-plaintiff is written as 06.12.1983. Perusal of evidence also confirmed that the respondent submitted Ex.P-1, shows the date of birth of respondent as 06.12.1983, which was duly entered in the record of Birth Certificates, issued on 12.12.1983. This document (Ex.P-1) exposed the actual date of birth of respondent i,e, 06.12.1983 and there is no rebuttal of this documentary evidence by the petitioner.
10. 9.As per arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that the age of respondent must be considered as 12-years at the time of getting enrollment for the examination of Matric according to rules of the Board. In such circumstances, Board cannot issue the revised certificate to any one due to less age of 14-years. On the calculation of actual date of birth (06.12.1983) of respondent when the examination was held, the age of the respondent was 13 years, 5 months and 27-days on 01.08.1997 according to the rules of Board and later on approved the following addition in Section 1- A in Chapter 19 of the Board Calendar:- "A student getting admission in an institution in Class 1X shall be of 12-years of age by 1st August of the year of enrolment/registration with the Board".
11. 10.From the perusal of above said addition, in the rules of Board and after thorough examination of the record, I am of the view that this rule relates to the regular candidates and in this particular case, a private candidate having age of 13-years, 5-months and 27 days on 1st August of the year of calendar, has no previous school/ record regarding the enrollment for class 9th is not far away from the required situation. It is further clarified that revised rules of B.I.S.E. incorporated w,e,f, 2009, so in this situation a candidate, who appeared in the year 1997, cannot be retrospectively affected.
12. 11.The next contention raised that the admission form of the respondent was filled in by the respondent himself; therefore, date of birth cannot be substituted at such belated stage.
13. 12.On examining of Admission Form (Ex.D-1) of respondent, where the said entry was verified by the Headmaster of Government High School, Shandara, Lahore. The requirement for attesting the forms of the private candidate, be also linked with the head of any Institution, School and College, approved by the Board, but the said School Headmaster has no authenticated record of verification of age due to private candidate. Therefore, there is a strong possibility of mistake, which might be occurred in the admission form and the same is rectifiable, when the material substance is available on the record.
13. Further-more, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted copy of judgment dated 09.03.2017 passed in C.P.No,2633-L of 2015, whereby, change of entry of date of birth in MatriculationCertificate was declared barred by time, but in the instant case, certificate was issued by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore on 13.09.2008, whereas the respondent filed a suit for declaration on 19.10.2012, therefore, suit of the respondent-plaintiff cannot be treated as time- barred. As the suit for which no period of imitation is provided, can be filed within a period of 6- years when the right to sue accrues. It is further observed that the respondent fulfilled the requirements of Board, when he initially applied for the correction of his date of birth and the petitioner-Board referred the matter for ascertaining the correct age on the basis of Medical Board Examination. Hence, the findings of issue No,1 remained upheld. Wherein, it is held that the plaintiff sought the correction of date of birth after exhausting all the available rules mentioned in his Secondary School Certificate before filing the suit. In the case in hand, the respondent-plaintiff had taken all the possible measures to rectify the Secondary School Certificate by tendering the supporting documents. The correction of date of birth of the respondent would not adversely affect the right of any person or policy of the Board. Therefore, the decisions of both Courts below need no interference by this court.
14. The Corollary of my foregoing discussion is that I find no merits and substance in this civil revision, the same is hereby dismissed.
15. 14.Issue No,3regarding the jurisdiction of Civil Court was also duly resolved by the respondent while invoking the ultimate jurisdiction of Civil Court. However, it is an established law that the Civil Court being the Court of ultimate jurisdiction can look into the illegality committed by any forum. In the instant lies, the respondent-plaintiff has taken all possible steps for the rectification of School Certificate while adopting the proper procedure of B.I.S.E.
16. 15.Consequently,the petitioner- defendant failed to negate and rebut the documents (Ex. P-1 & Ex. P-2) produced by the respondent-plaintiff before the learned trial Court, therefore, decisions of both the Courts below are based on well reasons and no illegality or irregularity have been F committed by the lower Courts. In this regard, I am in consensus with the dictum rendered in case titled "Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Islamabad through Chairman/Secretary v. Junaid Rehmat" (2009 YLR 1296).