RAJA SHAKEEL AHMED, J. Through this revision petition, the petitioner, impugns the order of dated 21.10.2020, passed by the Court of learned District Judge Ghanche, where the petitioner's appeal against the Judgment of Learned Senior Civil Judge Khaplu, dated 23.09.2019 was dismissed vide the said judgment Learned Civil Judge had dismissed the suit of plaintiff/ petitioner filed against the respondents/ defendants for declaration to the effect that her actual date of birth as per matriculation certificate is 01.05.1994, which has been wrongly recorded as 01.05.1984 in her CNIC, which is against the fact and is liable to be corrected.
2. Defendants contested the suit by filing their joint para wise written statement containing several preliminary legal objections inter alia that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation and that law of estoppel attracts in the case as such the plaint of plaintiff is liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure. On facts they pleaded that the plaintiff had initially applied for issuance of CNIC in year 2004, wherein, her date of birth was mentioned as 01-05-1984 which is in her use since then.
3. In the light of the pleadings of the parties the trial court framed the as well as 06 issues including the relief. The learned trial court after receiving the pro and contra evidence and hearing the parties was pleased to dismiss the suit holding that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove his date of birth is 01.05.1994: Being dissatisfied from the findings of the Judgment of learned Civil Judge the plaintiff/petitioner filed appeal before the 1st Appellate Court which got the same fate and the learned District Judge Ghanche vide impugned judgment dated 21-10-2020 dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff/petitioner holding devoid of merits, the same led to this revision petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that impugned judgment decrees of the both the lower courts are contrary to law and facts on the record of the case as such the impugned judgments are not maintainable and fit to be set aside. He further contended that the case of the petitioner on the basis of his deposition before the court and un-impeach able documentary evidence Exh. P/1 before the learned trial Court should have been decreed in favour of plaintiff/ petitioner but the learned trial Court as well as the 1st Appellate Court have failed to appreciate the reliable documentary evidence produced by the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the impugned judgments/decrees passed by the trial Court as well as the 1st Appellate Court are result of miss-reading and non-reading of the evidence, hence the impugned judgments of both the lower Courts are not tenable and liable to be set aside. To substantiate his contention, the learned counsel for petitioners/plaintiff place his reliance on the following case laws (0 2020 YLR 2266 decided in Civil Revision No. 16/2018 hold by the honorable Justice All Baig Chief Judge Chief Court Gilgit Baltistan in case titled Fida Hussain v. Director NADRA etc. (II) and judgment of Chief Court dated 11.05.2018 passed in Civil Revision No. 35/2017 in case titled Ashraf Hussain v. Director General NADRA etc. passed by the honorable Justice Wazir Shakeel Chief Judge Chief Court Gilgit Baltistan.
6. On the other hand, the Mr. Khawar Shaheed, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents/defendants supported the impugned judgments/ decrees passed by the both the learned Courts below by contending the CNIC was issued mentioning date of birth of the petitioner on the basis of information provided by the petitioner/plaintiff, therefore the petitioner is estopped by his conduct and admission to institute the suit against the respondents/defendants. The learned Counsel for the respondents further argued that suit of the petitioner/ plaintiff is time barred, hence rightly dismissed by both the learned courts.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and also gone through the record of the case with their able assistance. The crucial issue in the matter was issue No. 3 the same is reproduced as under:-- "Whether the actual date of birth of plaintiff as per matriculation certificate is 01/05/1994 while her date of birth mentioned in CNIC viz 01/05/1984 is wrong and is liable to be corrected? OPP"
The learned trial court while discussing the issue has admitted the date of birth of petitioner/plaintiff has been recorded in the matriculation certificate Exh.P-2 as 01-05-1994, but at the same time held that without any supporting document Exh. P-2 cannot be safely relied and the matriculation certificate cannot be taken as exclusive proof for her date of birth, astonishingly the 1st Appellate Court also substantiate the same finding of trial court and on the basis of these findings, held that the petitioner failed to prove her DOB as 01-05-1994. The findings of both the learned courts on the issue amounts to misreading and non-reading of evidence, the learned judges of both the lower Courts erred in holding that the document couldn't be safely relied basically the academic credential have strong presumption of truth attached to them specially where the same were not properly rebutted the burden in this case was on the respondents to rebut the contents of Exh P-2 through reliable documents but the respondents have not been able to rebut/controvert the documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner they have just denied the claim of the plaintiff evasively i.e. the CNIC of the petitioner was issued to the plaintiff on the basis of information provided by the petitioner.
8. It is regrettable, and astonishing to know that both the courts below have erroneously found the entries regarding the DOB in the SSC certificate not proved against the settled principle of law enunciated in superior courts of country as well as of GB specially in circumstances of the present case where the DOB mentioned in the matriculation certificate of the petitioner was not challenged on any score by respondents.
9. Suffice is to refer the judgment of the apex Court of GB passed in C.P.L.A. No. 39/2017 dated 10,08.2017, wherein the DOB of the petitioner in the SSC/ Matriculation certificate was held correct. In the another cases 2020 YLR 2266 decidec Civil Revision No. 16/2018 by the Honorable justice Ali Baig Chief Judge Chief Court Gilgit in case titled Fida Hussain v. Director NADRA etc. (II) 2008 SCM R 713 and judgment of Chief Court dated 11.05.2018 passed in Civil Revision No. 35/2017 in case titled Ashraf Hussain v. Director General NADRA etc. passed by the Honorable Justice Wazir Shakeel Chief Judge Chief Court Gilgit, it has been held that the strong and un-impeachable presumption of truth is attached with the educational testimonial and the same have greater evidentiary value than any other document. On the basis of above it could be safely hold that the impugned judgments passed by trial court as well as the 1st Appellate Court are result of miss-reading and non-reading of evidence of the parties.
10. In the light of what has been discussed above, this revision petition is allowed, impugned judgments and decrees of both the lower courts are set aside, as a result thereof suit instituted by the petitioner/plaintiff shall stand decreed as prayed for with the direction to the answering respondents to correct the date of birth of petitioner in the CNIC as per her matriculation certificate. File.