ALI BAIG, J.---This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred against the impugned judgment/decree dated 22- 11-2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit whereby the learned 1st Appellate Court has dismissed the Civil 1st Appeal of the appellant/plaintiff.
2. Succinctly facts leading to the filing of the instant Civil Revision Petition are that the present petitioner/ plaintiff filed a suit for declaration against the respondents/defendants in the learned trial Court claiming that as per matriculation certificate and birth certificate, the correct date of birth of the petitioner/plaintiff is 08-04-1997 while respondents / defendants have wrongly mentioned date of birth of the petitioner as 08-04-1988 which is required to be corrected in accordance with birth certificate and matriculation certificate of the petitioner/ plaintiff.
3. The respondents / defendants resisted the suit by filing their written statement in the trial Court wherein they have denied to contents of plaint on various legal and factual grounds. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties the learned 1st trial Court, framed the following issues to resolve controversy between the parties:-
4. After framing of the above mentioned issues the learned trial Court directed the parties to adduce their evidence in support of their respective claims.
5. Accordingly the plaintiff/ petitioner has produced one oral witness namely Mohammad Ali son of Meharban Ali besides recording of his own statement in the Trial Court. The plaintiff/petitioner has also produced age assessment certificate Exh. P/1, copy of Matriculation certificate Exh. P/2 and birth Registration certificate Exh.
P13. Whereas the respondents/defendants have not produced any oral and documentary" evidence in the trial Court except recording of their statement through Departmental representative namely Ghulam Murtaza.
6. On conclusion of trial the learned trial Court after hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties has dismissed the suit of plaintiff/petitioner vide judgment dated 11-09-2017. The aforesaid judgment/decree passed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class Nagar was challenged before the learned Additional District Judge Nagar through Civil 1st Appeal by the petitioner/plaintiff which was also dismissed by the learned 1st Appellate Court.
Hence this Civil Revision petition.
7. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended the impugned judgment/decree passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court is contrary to law and facts on the record of the case as such the impugned judgment passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner/ plaintiff had proved his case/claim by adducing cogent and un impeachable oral and documentary evidence in the learned trial Court but the learned trial Court as well as the learned 1st Appellate have failed the appreciate the reliable oral and documentary evidence produced by the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff further argued that the impugned judgment/decree passed by the learned trial Court are result of misreading and non-reading of evidence of the parties hence, the impugned judgment. of 1st appellate Court and judgment of trial Court are not tenable and liable to be set aside.
8. On the other hand the learned legal Advisor/counsel for the respondents/ defendants supported the impugned judgment/decree passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court by contending that the CNIC was issued mentioning date of birth as 08-04-1988 to the petitioner/plaintiff on the basis of information and documents provided by the petitioner/plaintiff. The learned legal Advisor of respondents further argued that suit of the plaintiff/ petitioner is time barred and the learned trial Court and 1st Appellate Court have rightly dismissed suit of the petitioner/ plaintiff which may be maintained, in the interest of justice.
9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel by the parties and with their assistants, I have gone through the record.
10. Admittedly the plaintiff has filed declaratory suit for correction of his date of birth in CNIC claiming therein that his correct dated of birth according to his matriculation certificate, Birth Registration certificate and age assessment certificate is 08-04-1997 whereas the respondents have wrongly mentioned date of birth of the petitioner in his National Identity Card as 08.04.1988 which is wrong, incorrect and is required to be corrected.
11. It is evident from the record that plaintiff/petitioner has adduced strong un impeachable and cogent documentary evidence to prove his case/claim in the shape of age assessment certificate Exh. P/1, Matriculation certificate Exh. P/2 and birth Registration certificate Exh. P/3, in the trial Court wherein date of birth of the petitioner/plaintiff has been mentioned/disclosed as 08-04-1997. The respondents have not been able to rebut/ controvert the documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner and they have denied the claim/averments of plaint evasively by pleading/asserting in their written statement that computerized National Identity Card was issued to the plaintiff on the basis of information provided by the petitioner/plaintiff which amounts to admission. The respondents/ defendants have failed to produce a single oral or documentary evidence in the trial to controvert/rebut the evidence and averments of plaint.
12. Concurrent findings recorded by learned trial Court as well as the learned 1st Appellate Court are result of misreading and non-reading of evidence of parties warranting inter-ference by this Court through its revisional jurisdiction.
13. In view of above discussion I have come to the conclusion that both the learned 1st appellate Court and trial Court have committed material irregularity and illegality while passing the impugned judgments, therefore, I am inclined to allow this revision petition.
14. Resultantly the impugned judgment/decree dated 22-11-2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Nagar and judgment/decree dated 11.09.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge Nagar are set aside.
Suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff is decreed as prayed for. Parties are left to bear their own costs. File revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.