IJAZ ANW AR, J.---This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.01.201 9 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-III, Peshawar , whereby , he, by accepting the appeal of the respondent/Board, set aside the judgment and decree dated 18.01.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge-XI, Peshawar in her favour .
2. Facts, in brief, leading to the instant revision petition are that initially petitioner had filed a suit for declaration regarding correction of date of birth as 04.08.1982 which was wrongly entered by the respondent-Board in their record as 04.08.1975 and is liable to correction. The learned Trial Court summoned the respondent-Board who appeared and contested the suit by filing a written statement. From the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed as many as 06 issues, including the relief. Thereafter , both the parties were directed to produce evidence in support of their respective claims/stances, which were recorded accordingly . The learned Trial Court, after hearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties, accepted the suit of the petitioner by directing the respondent-Board to correct the date of birth of the petitioner as 04.08.1982 instead of 04.08.1975 within thirty days. Being aggrieved, respondent/Board filed appeal before the learned Addition al District Judge-III, Peshawar , who after hearing learned counsel for the parties, accepted their appeal vide judgment and decree dated 17.01.2019 and set-aside the judgment and decree dated 18.01.2018, passed by the learned Trial Court, hence, this revision petition.
3. Learned counsel, representing the petitioner , argued that the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 04.08.1982 and mistakenly it was recorded as 04.08.1975, which is against the facts, and it is liable to be corrected as per her CNIC, where her correct date of birth is recorded. Similarly , if the wrong entry of date of birth is considered, the age of the petitioner at the time of passing matriculation was 22 years which is not understandable. In this regard, he placed reliance on cases titled, "Khurshid and others v. Umar Bakhsh though L.Rs. (2007 SCMR 1781 ), Amir Shah v. Ziarat Gul (1998 SCMR 593), Abdul Khaliq and another v. Maulvi Muhammad Noor and others (PLD 2005 SC 962), Malik Muhammad Faisal and another v. State Life Insurance Corporation through, Chairman and 2 others (2008 SCMR 456), Muhammad Malik Afzal and others v. Muhammad Noor through L.Rs (2012 YLR 161) and Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education through Chairman v. Abeer Masood (2017 CLC 1085 )". He further argued that the learned Appellate Court has wrongly interfered with the judgment and decree awarded by the learned Trial Court, thus, prayed for the acceptance of the instant revision petition.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing the respondent-Board, argued that the suit of the petitioner was barred by time, because the wrong entry , if any, came to her knowledge when she got her matric certificate in the year, 1997; however , she accepted it and, thus, at this belated stage, she cannot be allowed to raise such plea.
She also referred to the admission application/form of the petitioner for matric exam, wherein, she, herself, entered her date of birth as 04.08.1982. She further argued that date of birth of the petition er, recorded in the matriculation certificate, is as per school record, because, the petitoner has failed to produce any school record or other documentary proof in support of her contention. In this regard, she placed reliance on the cases titled, "Hayat Mir v. Government (2016 CLC 1384 ), Abdul Karim v. Muhammad Akram (1995 CLC 130), Muhammad Arshad and another v. Mian Noor Ahmad and others (2008 SCMR 713), Shazia Qamar and others v. Bashiran Bibi and others (2016 CLC 15) and Amjad Karim v. Mst. Asiya Kausur and 2 others (2015 SCMR 1)". She further argued that matric certificate of the petitioner shows that she passed her matric exam in the capacity of private candidate and also her admission application/form shows that earlier , she also appeared in the matric exam but probably failed, thus, the argument that at the time of passing matric, her age was 22 years, is justified from the record.
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. Admittedly , whenever , any aspirant applies for a CNIC, he/she has to submit form-B or matric certificate in support of his/her date of birth and, in case, the candidate who shows himself/ herself as illiterate then on his/her oral assertion, the date of birth is recorded. The main claim of the petitioner , in the instant case, is regarding her correct age as mentioned in the CNIC, however , to support such contention, no official from the NADRA produced in order to unfold the fact that how the entry in her CNIC was made. Similarly , petitioner has failed to produce the school record to substantiate the error occurred at the time of entry in the Board record. Though, petitioner alleges that the school record was lost due to floods of the year 2010, albeit, the admission application/form of matric shows that petitioner , herself, entered her date of birth as 04.08.1975. It prima facie suggests that entry in the school record carried forward because by then, the record was available and was not lost. While going through the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, above referred, it is not applicable in the instant case, because in the case reported as 2005 SCMR 962, age recorded in the matric certificate was against the entries in the record of Dakhil Register and school certificate of the Head Master . While, in the instant case, petitioner has failed to produce Dakhil Register .
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan exactly in an identical case titled, "Muhammad Arshad and another v.
Mian Noor Ahmad and others (2008 SCMR 713)" upheld the judgment of the High Court and refused leave on the ground, "when petitioner filed his admission form for his appearance in Matriculation examination, he himself had mentioned 11.12.1980 as his date of birth, therefore, date of birth shown in the birth certificate and identity card as 25.1 1.1976, has no relevance".
8. Thus, for the reasons stated hereinabove, this Court finds that the learned Appellate Court has rightly interfered with the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court and passed a very well reasoned judgment while setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court.
9. In view of the above, I find no infirmity , illegality or jurisdictional defect in the judgment and decree of the learned Appellate Court, hence, this revision petition, being meritless, is dismissed.