ZULFIQAR AHMAD KHAN, J. Through this Civil Revision, the applicant has assailed the impugned judgment and decree dated 21.12.2021 respectively passed by learned 8th Additional District Judge, Hyderabad, whereby it dismissed the Civil Appeal No.228/2021 filed by the applicant/appellant Abdul Hafeez ("the applicant") and set aside the judgment dated 07.09.2021 and decree dated 11.09.2021 passed by learned 4th Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad in F.C. Suit No.731 of 2021, where the said Court dismissed the suit of the applicant.
2. Relevant and necessary facts are that applicant filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction against the defendants/respondents viz.a.viz Federation of Pakistan and Assistant Director/Incharge, National Database Registration Office, State Life Building, Hyderabad ("the respondents") alleging therein that the applicant was 'born on 13.09.1996, passed the Primary Education on 31.05.2007 and- such School Leaving Certificate was issued to him on 23.01.2007 while the date of birth of the applicant has been mentioned in Primary School Leaving Certificate as 13.09.1996. According to the applicant, in the year 2015 the applicant approached the defendant's office and got prepared his CNIC, in which the date of birth of the applicant has wrongly been mentioned as "01.01.1989" instead of "13.09.1996". Hence, the applicant approached the respondent along with all relevant record for correction of his CNIC but they flatly refused and advised him to approach the Court of law for getting such declaration, hence, he filed the suit with the following prayers:-
(a) That this Court may kindly be pleased to pass decree thereby declaring that the actual date of birth of the plaintiff is 13.09.1996 as mentioned in his qualification documents and his date of birth as 01.01.1989 has wrongly and, erroneously been mentioned in his CNIC, therefore, he is entitled for issuance of fresh CNIC / Smart Card with his actual date of birth viz. 131. 09.1996.
(b) That this Court may kindly further be pleased to pass for mandatory injunction thereby directing the defendants to issue fresh CNIC to the plaintiff with his correct date of birth viz. 13.09.1996.
(c) That this Court may further saddle the costs of the suit upon the defendants.
(d) Any other relief this Court deems fit and proper be awarded.
3. The respondent / NADRA filed written statement, wherein denied the version of the applicant and categorically stated that in the year 2010, the applicant applied for obtaining his CNIC, submitted CNIC Form, showing his date of birth as 01.01.1989 and not 13.09.1996 and on the said information provided by the applicant, the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) Islamabad issued CNIC bearing No.43407-0410666-9 to him. It is also averred in the written statement that after obtaining CNIC, the applicant was satisfied and remained silent till the filing of the suit. It is further mentioned in the written statement that if the date of birth as claimed by the applicant is considered i.e. 13.09.1996, meaning thereby at the time of processing of his CNIC he was just 14 years old (2010-1996=14) which is against the Registration Policy. It is further averred in the written statement that the suit is not maintainable in law, the same is barred by section 40 of NADRA Ordinance 2000, Article 114 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 and section 42 of Specific Relief Act, hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs:
4. On the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:-
1. Whether suit of plaintiff is not maintainable in law?
2. Whether correct date of birth of plaintiff is 13.09.1996 instead of 01.01.1989?
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for any relief?
4. What should the decree be?
5. Thereafter both parties led their respective evidence. The applicant got examined himself at Ex.P/17, he produced his CNIC at Ex.O/17-A, his School Leaving Certificate, at Ex.P/17-B and Certificate of Annual Examination, 2015 at Ex.P/17-C PW-2 Abdul Razzaque the brother of applicant was examined at Ex.P/18. Then the side of the applicant was closed vide statement at Ex.19.
6. The respondents examined their Authorized Officer namely Muhammad Aslam Rajput at Ex.D/20, he produced Computer Generated Form at Ex.D/20-A, affidavit of the applicant at Ex.D/20-B and Computer Form of CNIC at Ex.D/20-C. Then the side of respondents was closed vide statement at Ex.21.
7. As stated earlier, the trial Court dismissed suit of the applicant, and his appeal was also dismissed.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material available on record.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that impugned judgments and decrees passed by learned appellate Court as well as trial Court are opposed to the law, facts, equity and justice and committed material irregularities while passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Per learned counsel, the learned trial Court has failed to consider the fact that the date of birth of the applicant as per his Primary School Leaving Certificate is 13.09.1996 but even such documentary proof did not decide Issue No.2 in favour of the applicant after examining the evidence on record, as such, the findings of learned trial Court are faulty and result of misreading and non-reading of pleadings and evidence of the parties. He next contended that respondents also failed to controvert the date of birth as mentioned in the Primary School Leaving Certificate, which, therefore, has gone unchallenged and un-rebuttal. He contends that the learned appellate Court has also failed to evaluate the material available on record and its proper assessment could have reversed the findings of the learned trial Court and decided the matter in favour of the applicant, which too erred while passing the impugned judgment and decree. He lastly contends that the learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate. Court passed impugned judgments and decrees without considering all of the above aspects of the case, which are illegal, improper and erroneous and the same may be set aside.
10. The following points are framed for my determination:-
(1) Whether the decisions of the learned trial. Court and appellate Court are contrary to law, having substantial error or defect?
(2) What the decree should be?
11. My findings on the above issues with reasons thereof are as follows:- Point No.1. .................. As under.
Point No.2. ............ Revision is dismissed in limini.
REASONS
12. I have perused the judgments of both the Courts below and evidence led by the respective parties and find it appropriate to first refer to the judgment of the trial Court wherein, on the basis of the findings given in respect of issue No.2 as to "whether correct date of birth of plaintiff is 13.09.1996 instead of 01.01.1989". This issue is the bone of the contentic... which has decided the entire suit of the applicant, which was replied in negative. The appellate Court also gave the same findings to that of the learned trial Court on issue No.2, hence, if would be appropriate to examine this material issue No.2 as to whether the Courts below have rightly decided the same or otherwise.
13. As to the burden of proof in respect of issue No.2 lied upon the applicant, he in support of his version examined himself and his brother namely, Abdul Razzaque. The applicant deposed that his actual date of birth is 13.09.1996. He applied for issuance of CNIC mentioning his date of birth as 13.09.1996, but NADRA authorities mentioned his incorrect date of birth in CNIC as 01.01.1989 instead of 13.09.1996. He further deposed that against such a mistake in his CNIC, he approached NADRA but they refused and asked to bring a Court decree, therefore, he filed the suit. During cross- examination, the applicant admitted that he knows that CNIC is being issued at the age of 18 years.
He also admitted that if his date of birth is counted from 1996 then till 2010, his age was 14 years. He also admitted that his educational documents have been issued seven-years later after the issuance of his CNIC. In support of his contention, the applicant also examined his brother Abdul Razzaque, who deposed that the actual date of birth of the applicant is 13.09.1996 but NADRA authorities have wrongly mentioned his date of birth in his CNIC as 01.01.1989.
14. In contrast, the respondents examined Muhammad Aslam Rajput, Assistant Superintendent NADRA Office Noorani Basti Hyderabad, who deposed that in the year 2010 applicant applied for obtaining his CNIC and submitted a CNIC form showing his date of birth as 01.01.1989 and not 13.09.1996 and on the information provided by the applicant, NADRA authorities issued CNIC to the applicant. In his deposition, this witness also clarified that if the date of birth of the applicant is considered as 13.09.1996, the age of the applicant had become just 14 years and it is against the registration policy. In his cross-examination, the material substance in respect of the date of birth of the applicant could not be scattered.
15. After a careful perusal of the record, I do not concede to the idea that the respondents have failed to consider the qualificational documents of the applicant, which admittedly were obtained much after the issuance of CNIC to the applicant on the basis of information furnished by the applicant himself. The fact is that the applicant himself failed to get his date of birth corrected by filling up the required Form timely when he originally applied for his CNIC, which request after ten years of the issuance of the said CNIC cannot be allowed. The applicant himself applied for the issuance of Smart Card in the year 2010 when he himself declared his date of birth as 01.01.1989 which shows that at the time of issuance of CNIC, he was 21 years old (approximately). He definitely would have used that CNIC for 10 years, and thereafter filed the suit in the year 2021. Furthermore as per CNIC the applicant is resident of District Kambar Shandadkot and in his CNIC permanent and temporary both addresses are that of District Kambar Shandadkot, but the applicant filed suit before the learned trial Court in District Hyderabad without mentioning any reason that why he had not filed suit before learned trial Court at District Kambar Shandadkot where he was settled. Here it is also important to note that Section 40 of NADRA Ordinance 2000 provides that no suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings could be instituted against Federal Government or Provincial Government or Local Authority, any Registration Officer or any other person exercising any power or performing any function under the Ordinance for anything which is done in good faith. It is obvious that the applicant did not produce any educational documents when he obtained his first CNIC. All of the documents are issued later than the issuance of the CNIC. Hence, these documents authenticity and legitimacy are highly questionable. The applicant has failed to produce his B-Form, FRC, Birth Certificate or any documentary proof to show that there is any difference of the age interse with his other family member. Before the trial Court, the applicant appeared in the witness box being not aware regarding the spelling of the word "Metric" (the exam he claims to have passed) which showed that he is probably still an uneducated person and both the education and birth related documents are managed.
16. In the given circumstances, I reach to the irresistible conclusion that the impugned judgments of the Courts below. do not suffer from illegalities an irregularities, as such, the same do not require any interference of his Court as the learned trial Judge has given valid and cogent reasons for his findings, which rightly maintained by the learned appellate Court. Consequently, I see no legal justification to disturb the same, which are accordingly upheld. Resultantly, the instant revision application is dismissed in limini to avoid misuse of the process of law as enshrined in the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court rendered in the case of 'Muhammad Rizwan Gill v.
Nadia Aziz and others' (PLD 2010 Suprem e Court 828).