SHAKIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, J.---Through the instant revision petition the petitioner has challenged the validity of judgment and decree dated 20.02.2019 passed by the learned Trial Court, decreeing the suit of the respondent.
The petitioner also challenges the judgm ent and decree dated 10.3.2020 passed by the learned Appellate Court, whereby the appeal of the petitioner had been dismissed.
2. The relevant facts for disposal of instant petition are that Muhammad Waleed-respondent instituted a suit for declaration to the effect that he passed his matriculation examination under Roll No.535668 having registration No.45657-FR-2013 in the year 2015 and accordingly he was issued matriculation certificate. As per his stance, in view of entries mentioned in his birth certificate as well as Computerized National Identity Card of his father , his actual date of birth is 04.3.1998, whereas his father's name is Ashiq Ali, but inadvertently his date of birth and father's name have been mentioned in the matriculation certificate as 10.6.1998 and Muhammad Ashiq Ali, respectively . The plaintif f approached the petitioner Board, for correction of above said entries in his matriculation certificate along with his original documents, but his request was not acceded to, hence, he instituted the said suit.
3. Conversely , the petitioner Board vehem ently contested the suit by filing written statement, wherein preliminary as well as factual objections were taken. The petitioner asserted that the respondent had no cause of action to file the suit and that the suit was not maintainable, as by virtue of Sections 29 and 31 of Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976 and, therefore, the jurisdiction of civil court was barred. On factual points, the petitioner Board averred in the written statement that the matriculation certificate was issued in view of form duly filled and signed by the respondent himself. Accordingly , it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.
4. Out of divergent pleadings of both the parties, the learned trial court framed as many as five issues, which are reproduced as under:-
1. Whether the correct date of birth of the plaintiff is 04.3.1998 which is wrongly mentioned as 10.6.1998 in his academic certificates by the defendant, if so, its effect? OPP
2. If issue No.01 is proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for declaration? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff's claim is contrary to the documents provided? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit? OPD
5. Relief'.
After framing of issues, both the parties were directed by the learned trial court to adduce their respective evidence.
The respondent produced following witnesses in his oral evidence:- i. Muhammad W aleed/Plaintif f, PW -1 ii. Muhammad Adeel, PW -2 Following documentary evidence was brought record by the respondent:- i. 'BA Y' Form of the plaintif f, Exh.P-1 ii. Birth Certificate of the plaintif f, Exh.P-2 iii. Impugned Matriculation certificate, Exh.P-3 iv. Photocopy of CNIC of Muhammad Adeel/PW -2, Mark 'A' v. Photocopy of CNIC of father of the plaintif f, Mark 'B' vi. Photocopy of death certificate of father of plaintif f, Mark 'C'
On the other hand, following appeared as witness on behalf of the petitioner:-- Muhammad Riaz, Assistant Legal Cell, DW -1.
The following documentary evidence was brought on record on behalf of the petitioner:- i. Copy of Admission Form of the respondent, Exh.D-1; and ii. Copy of report of General Branch of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Faisalabad Exh.D-2.
5. The learned Trial Court after evaluating evidence of both the parties proceeded to decree the suit of the respondent vide impugned judgment and decree dated 20.02.2019. Feeling aggrie ved, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.3.2020 by the learned Appellate Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below are not only against the facts and record of the case but also the law applicable thereto. He adds that the learned Courts below relied upon the evidence produced by the respondent while passing the impugned judgments and decrees and failed to take into consideration the fact that the witne sses of the respondent failed to corroborate his version. He further states that gross illegality has been committed by the learned Courts below while passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Learned counsel for the petitioner adds that the respondent appeared in annual examination of metric in the year 2015 and the admission form was duly filed and signed by the respondent himself. He added that the matriculation certificate was issued as per details provided by the respondent in his admission form and in this regard, the petitioner had not committed any illegality . He contends that the petitioner had brought on record aforesaid admission form, but such document was not evaluated in its true perspective. He further states that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below are result of misreading and non-reading of evidence available on record. He explains that the suit of the respondent was not maintainable in view of Sections 29 and 31 of Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976, but the learned Trial Court did not give any finding on this aspect, whereas the learned Appellate Court has thrashed it away on erroneous considerations. He further explains that the learned courts below , whip passing impugned judgments and decrees have not applied their judicial minds. He maintains that the learned courts below have also not appreciated evidence available on record in its true perspective. He states that the impugned judgments and decrees are against the law, hence, the same are liable to be set aside. He lastly prays that while accepting instant petition, the suit instituted by the respondent be dismissed.
In order to substantiate his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the cases reported as Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education through Chairman v. Atif Riaz (2006 MLD 1378 ) Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education through Chairman and 3 others v. Javed Iqbal Bajwa (2005 YLR 2114), Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore through Secretary v. Miss Ghazala Roohi (2002 MLD 1966 ), The Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargodha v. Qaiser lqbal and another (2000 CLC 1322 ), ljaz Mehmood v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore through Chairman (1999 CLC 984), Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore through Secretary v. Mst. Sobia Chand (1999 CLC 1166) and Government of the Punjab through Secretary , Department of Education, Lahore v . Prof. Mst. Jamida Malik (1991 MLD 824 ).
7. Perusal of record reveals that the respondent instituted a suit for declaration on 2.10.2017 with the assertion that his actual date of birth is 04.3.1998, whereas his father's name is Ashiq Ali, but the same have been wrongly mentioned in his matriculation certificate as 10.6.1998 and Muhammad Ashiq Ali, respectively .
8. It further transpires from the record that the respondent in his suit had stated that the petitioner had wrongly stated the above-noted incorrect entry while issuing the matriculation certificate, that is, his incorrect date of birth and the incorrect name of his father . It was also his contention, therein that he had submitted the relevant document for the correction of the record to the petitioner but was asked to obtain a decree from the Court, therefore, the said suit had been instituted by the respondent. It was further his stance that cause of action arose against the petitioner , inter alia when they refused to make the correction in the record.
9. On the other hand, the petitioner through its written statement raised preliminary objection in terms of Sections 29 and 31 of the Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976. It was contended that the respondent had no cause of action and that the suit had been filed to pressurize the petitioner . It was vehemently stated through the preliminary objections that "that the plaintiff in his plaint has narrated a false and fabricated story simply to escape lawful punishment". On merits, it was stated that the respondent had submitted an admission Form as a student in the Annual Exam, 2015 filled and signed by him and according to that Form, the certificate in question was issued. It was further stated that the said Form had been attested by his School Principal and that there is no negligence on the part of the petitioner . The rest of the important assertions of the respondent, as noted above, were denied through vague denial and the jurisdiction of the learned Civil Court was challenged elaborately , in terms of Sections 29 and 31 of the Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976.
10. The learned Trial Court after going through the record and having heard the learned counsel for the parties decreed the suit of the respondent for the reason that the Birth Registration Certificate being a basic and public document had to be rebutted with strong evidence, which was found to be missing in this case and secondly held that it was of the view that at best the same was an inadvertent mistake and the relief claimed, if granted, will cause no loss to the Board but if the same is refused, it will cause loss and complications to the respondent. On the other hand, the learned Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal of the Board held that there was a clerical mistake and in view of the evidence produced by the parties, the same was rightly decree d. As far as the issue regarding the jurisdiction was concerned, it was held that the respondent had applied to the Board for the necessary correction but the of ficials did not make the said correction.
11. In order to prove his stance, the respondent appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and produced his brother Muhammad Adeel as PW-2, who fully supported the contents of the plaint. In documentary evidence, the respondent produced his 'BAY' Form as Exh.P-1, birth certificate as Exh.P-2, photocopies of CNIC of his brother and father as Mark 'A', Mark 'B' and death certificate of his father as Mark 'C', which reveal that date of birth of the respondent as well as his father's name have been recorded in the said documents as 04.3.1998 and Ashiq Ali respectively , which fully corroborate the version of the respondent. Perusal of birth certificate (Exh.P-2) further reveals that date of birth of the respondent was recorded with the concerned Union Council on 06.3.1998 i.e. just after two days of his birth i.e. 04.3.1998. Similarly , Form 'B' (Exh.P-1) was issued to the respondent on 09.12.2013 i.e. much prior to institution of suit, henc e, both the aforesaid documents exclude the element of fabrication at belated stage on the part of respondent for getting any undue benefit. On the other hand, the petitioner has produced admission form of the respondent as Exh.D-1, which is a computerized filled document and fully negates the stance of the petitioner that it was duly filled by the respondent. Although it bears signature of the respondent, but it is established that the same was prepared by the office of the school and not by the respondent himself and on account of clerical mistake on the part of the of fice of school, the respondent suf fered.
12. So far as the objection of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding jurisdiction of civil court in view of Sections 29 and 31 of Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976, is concerned, suffice is to say that although such objection was raised by the petitioner in its written statem ent, but no issue was framed in this regard and surprisingly no attempt was made by the petitioner during trial for framing of issue on this aspect.
No doubt, under the above referred Sections, jurisdiction of civil court in entertaining suits against acts of the Board done in good faith is barred, but there is no restriction for filing a suit against the Board, where functionaries of the Board did not act in good faith. In the instant case, it is an admitted position that before institution of the suit, the respondent had approached the petitioner for aforesaid correction in his matric ulation certificate by depositing requisite fee as is evident from Exh. D-2, but his grievance was not redressed, rather the same was consigned to office on the pretext that the respondent could not produce any record in support of his claim. A Such act of the petitioner is without any legal justification, for the reason that if grievance of the respondent was redressed at the level of petitioner , then why he would have approached the Courts to obtain a decre e for correction of his academic certificate. It is also notable that when the respondent can produce relevant documents in support of his stance in his suit before the learned Civil Court, then why he could not have produced the same before the petitioner . In the given circumstances, the learned Civil Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the respondent.
13. It also transpires from the evidence on record that the written statement submitted on behalf of the petitioner was vague and evasive, as noted above in detail. Moreover , the sole witness appearing on behalf of the petitioner as D.W.1, during his cross-examination admitted that he is not aware whether the respondent had given his Original Birth Certificate and Form 'BAY' issued by NADRA, or not. Moreover , Exh.D-2 notes that respondent was issued a notice for 07.8.2017 but no recor d was brought on record and the last notice was issued on 21.8.2017 but again no record was submitted in this regard, therefore, the case was consigned to record. The petitioner did not bring any of these above noted notices on record to prove its stance.
14., I have also gone through the judgm ents relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner . The case reported as Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education through Chairman v. Atif Riaz (2006 MLD 1378 ), does not support the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner for the reason that in that case the respondents did not approach the Board for correction of their dates of births. However , their suits had been decreed by the learned trial Court and the appeals were dismissed. The said respondents were proceeded against ex-parte by this Court and in view of the fact that they had not approached the Board for correction of their dates of birth and that there was no allegation of mala fide or that of lack of good faith, therefore, it was held that the learned trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain suits seeking correction of the entries of the record of the Board.
In the case reported as Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education through Chairman and 3 others v.
Javed Iqbal Bajwa (2005 YLR 2114), the suit of the respondent for the correction of date of birth from 01.02.1964 to 25.9.1965 had been decreed on 26.3.1996. The appeal of the Board had been dismissed and the matter came up before this Court under its. Revisional jurisdiction. It was noted by this Court that the respondent had applied to the Board on 13.4.1986. The said application was dismissed on 14.10.1986. A review was submitted before the Board on 06.11.1986, which was dismissed vide order dated 15.11.1986. It was in this background that the said suit was instituted on 26.3.1996 and it was held to be time barred and also that the learned trial Court had no jurisdiction in the matter in view of the provisions of the Punjab Boards of Interme diate and Secondary Education Act, 1976. In this view of the matter , this case is completely distinguishable from the facts of the case at hand and does not help the contentions raised by the Board.
The judgment reported as Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore through Secretary v.
Miss Ghazala Roohi (2002 MLD 1966 ) relates to the case of a civil servant, who wanted to get her date of birth changed and it was noted that if her alleged date of birth is admitted as correct, it would mean that she got admission in the school at the age of three years, which was found to be against Regulations framed by the Board.
Moreover , there was no evidence on record that her date of birth was 31.12.1957 instead of 11.8.1955. The facts being distinguishable from that of the instant case, therefore, this judgment does not support the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner .
The case reported as The Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargodha v. Qaiser Iqbal and another (2000 CLC 1322 ) also clearly distinguishable and hence is of no help to the petitioner . That case relates to the question of jurisdiction of learned Civil Court, in terms of a result of the respondent, who had instituted a suit for declaration that he was entitled to issuance of certificate from the Board that he had passed the exams.
The case reported as Ijaz Mehmood v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore through Chairman (1999 CLC 984), is also distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, therefore, it is of no help to the petitioner . In that case, the suit of the petitioner had been decreed and appeal of the Board was dismissed. During the course of proceedings of the civil revision before this Court, a consent order was passed to the effect that while completely ignoring the judgments of the two learned Courts below the Board shall pass a fresh order in the matter of correction of the date of birth of the petitioner . In this view of the matter , the Board reconsidered the issue and refused to change the date of birth of the petitioner . Accordingly , the matter again came up before this Court through a Constitutional petition.
The case was decided in view of the Regulation No.3(5) of the Board relating to "Changes in Date of Birth" , it was held that the petitioner had failed to show that there was a mistake in the school record and it was a clerical mistake. In view of the above reasoning, the petition was dismissed while upholding the decision of the Board due to insuf ficient evidence before the Court.
The case reported as Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore through Secretar y v. Mst.
Sobia Chand (1999 CLC 1166), is also distinguishable due to its own facts and, therefore, do not support the contentions raised on behalf of the Board in the instant case. In that case, the respondent had submitted an application for correction of her date of birth from 02.3.1974 to 02.3.1979. The Board through its order dated 12.01.1993 while rejecting the case of the respondent observed as follows:-
(1) She joined the school in Class III.
(2) Certificate of joining the infant/first class is not available.
(3) In Municipal record the date of birth has been recorded in 1992. It is a case of late entry which is not permissible.
She subsequently , challenged the decision of the Board, for correction of her date of birth. The suit was decreed and appeal filed by the Board was dismis sed. The matter came up before this Court and due to lack of supporting evidence regarding the contentions of the respondent, both the judgments were found to be unsustainable and accordingly it was found that jurisdiction of the learned Civil Court was clearly barred in terms of Sections 29 and 31 of Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976.
In the case reported as Government of the Punjab through Secretary , Department of Education, Lahore v.
Prof. Mst. Jamida Malik (1991 MLD 824), the matter related to a civil servant, who had approached learned trial Court through a suit seeking change of her date of birth, at the verge of her retirement. For this reason, the instant case is clearly distinguishable from the facts and circumstance of the case at hand.
15. On the other hand, in the case reported as Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan and others v. Muhammad Shahzad Aslam (2017 CLC Note 200), in an identical matter , where respondent No.1 sought correction of his date of birth and father's name in his Matriculation Certificate, learned two Courts below had rendered judgments and decrees in his favour and this Court under its Revisional jurisdiction upheld the same on the ground that there was no evidence produced on behalf of the Board to rebut the contents in the plaint. Moreover , the objection to jurisdiction in terms of Sections 29 and 31 of Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976, the same was repelled on the ground that where an aggrieved person found himself remediless, then the jurisdiction of the learned Civil Court could not be ousted.
In the case reported as Hasnain Faraz v. Chairman through B.I.S.E and others (2011 CLC 265) the suit instituted by the petitioner had been dismissed as well as his appeal, for correction of his date of birth from 12.02.1989 to 12.02.1990. This Court, while exercising Revisional jurisdiction accepted the petition, while decreeing the suit of the petitioner . This Court came to this conclusion that there was sufficient evidence on record, in favour of the petitioner , his father while appearing as a witness clearly stated that he contacted the Board and requested for rectification but the Board instead of doing so, advised him to file a civil suit. Moreover , the clerk of the said Board, in his evidence, had stated that the petitioner had not filled the requisite Form.
In the case reported as Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore through Chairman v.
Sardar Ghias Gul Khan (2001 YLR 729), the suit instituted by the respondent against the petitioner-Board for correction of his date of birth from 14.9.1979 to 14.9.1981 was decreed and appea l of the Board was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court. It also needs to be noted that the respondent had submitted an application to the Board for correction of the error. However , as no order was passed on this application, for four years, the respondent was constrained to file a suit. This Court while dealing with the matter under its Revisional jurisdiction held that act of the Board was nothing but malice in law. In view of the evidence on record, it was held that judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below were correct. As far as the question of bar of jurisdiction was concerned, it was noted that the application for correction had been filed by the respondent on 29.02.1996 and the suit was filed on 13.7.2000. It was found that there was no evidence, on behalf of the Board, as to why it did not decide the matter for almost four years. Accordingly , it was held that the facts depic ted that there was clearly malice in law on the part of the Board and accordingly it was held that learned Courts below were vested with the jurisdiction to come to the aid of the respondent.
16. The learned courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence available on record in its true perspective: Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment and decrees passed by the learned courts below , warranting interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. In these circumstances, the instant civil revision is dismissed in limine .