' This revision application arising out of the concurrent findings of the two Courts below. The facts, briefly, stated are that the present applicant had filed the civil suit for declaration only seeking the following reliefs:---
(a) That this Honourable Court may be pleased to declare that the plaintiff above-named be known by the name of 'Miss Roohi Shaikh' instead of Miss Rehmatunnisa for all purposes everywhere including in all the educational institutions of the country, and it is further prayed to direct the above named defendants Nos.1 to 3 to correct/change the plaintiff's name as Miss 'Roohi Shaikh' instead of Miss Rehmatunnisa and issue the new Educational Certificates accordingly in the interest of justice.
(b) Award costs of this suit."
2. The case of the applicant is that on birth her parents had given her the name as Roohi Shaikh, but unfortunately at the time of admission in Primary School the name of the applicant was shown as Rehmatunnisa, which name is not correct. After having passed her Matriculation examination in the year 1982, the applicant sought amendment of her name and in year 1986 made such prayer and got such item published in the Sindh Government Gazette of 27-3-1986, which reads as under:--- "It is hereby notified for general information that I have changed my name from Miss Rehmatunnisa to Miss Roohi d/o Shaikh Haider. Hereinafter I should be called, written and remembered by my new name."
' Before that she had also got news item published by way of advertisement in daily "Nawa-i-Waqt" of 9-5-1985. Consequently, the applicant obtained Permanent Residence Certificate and Domicile Certificate on 8-7-1986 and 13-5-1986 respectively. She had also moved an application to respondent No,1 on 8-4-1986. But the respondent No,1 did not issue her Matriculation Certificate in her name as prayed and therefore, she filed the present suit. Respondent No,1 contested the same and filed their written statement. The following issues were settled by the trial Court in the said suit:--- "(1) Is the plaintiff entitled to get declaration of Court regarding change of her name?
(2) Whether suit is not maintainable under law?
(3) Whether suit is barred by law?
(4) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit?
(5) What should the decree be?"
3. Issues Nos.3 and 4 were not pressed. The applicant examined herself and her father Shaikh Haider while no witness was examined by respondent No, 1 . The trial Court after hearing the arguments of the Advocates was pleased to dismiss the suit. Being aggrieved the applicant filed an appeal being Civil Appeal No,126 of 1988, which was dismissed by the District Judge, Karachi East. The applicant therefore, instituted this revision application.
4. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Abdullah, counsel for the applicant and Abrar Hassan, counsel for respondent No,1. None is present for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
5 The main contention raised by Mr. Muhammad Abdullah is that the adoption of name by a citizen or change of name is a legal right accruing to him which is synonymous to "legal character" and as such his suit does fall within the scope of section 42 of the Specific Reliefs Act. On factual side he has submitted that the evidence of the applicant and her father goes unrebutted and also there was no evidence brought in defence and, therefore, the suit of the applicant ought to have been decreed.
6. First I will take factual aspect of the case. Of course in a civil revision arising out of the concurrent findings of facts of the two Courts below, no indulgence can be granted by going into the facts of the case. However, it may be observed that in the present case the applicant had passed her Matriculation Examination for which the certificate was issued on 4-3-1982. The certificate mentions her name as Rehmatunnisa and her date of birth to be 19-10-1962. The move for change of the name was initiated by the applicant in May, 1985, when for the first time she give advertisement in newspaper. By this date the applicant had already attained the age of about 23 years. Thus, the case set up by the applicant in plaint that she could not change her name earlier, because she was a minor, is not corroborated. All the other acts are subsequent to issuance of Matriculation Certificate and performed at least four years thereafter. It may be ' observed that the case set up by the applicant and her father in evidence is that at the time of admission of applicant in primary School they had given her name as Roohi Shaikh, but the same was written as Rehmatunnisa. The applicant has very conveniently not disclosed the name of Primary School, nor any material or document is sought to be produced from that School to support her contention. The father of the applicant admits that at the time of introduction of scheme of National Identity Card, he had applied for his National Identity Card and filed 'B' Form, giving the name of his daughter as Roohi Shaikh, but even that Form has not been produced. It is also in admitted position that at the time "Admit Card" for the examination was issued to applicant, she had signed that Card, but even that Card, has not been produced in the suit to verify her signature, which appeared on the National Identity Card issued to applicant much afterwards. In these circumstances, I am of the view that even on factual aspect the applicant has not proved her case.
7. Now coming to the second issue with regard to legal aspect of the case, it may be observed that a declaration is to be granted under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, which reads as under:--- "Section 42.---Discretion of Court as to declaration of status or right. Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the Court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief: ' Bar to such declaration. Provided that no Court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so. Explanation.
A trustee of property is a 'person interested to deny' a title adverse to the title of someone who is not in existence, and for whom, if in existence, he would be a trustee."
8. From the above it may be observed that it is in three cases that such declaration can be given that is declaration of status, legal right or character. The prayer of the applicant does not fall within any of the above three ingredients of the provisions of section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. The earned counsel for the applicant has submitted that under section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code the applicant would be entitled to grant of the relief prayed for by her. I am unable to accept this contention of the learned counsel as section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that all the matters of civil nature are to be heard by a Civil Court, but a person coming to Courts seeking particular relief has to show as to under which provision of law he is entitled to such relief. The provisions of section 42 of the Specific Relief Act are exhaustive. In the case of Shafqatullah Qadri v.
University of Karachi reported in PLD 1954 Sindh 107, My Lord Mr. Justice Z.H. Lari (As his Lordship then was) has held that the provisions of section 42 of the Specific Relief Act is exhaustive of the relief provided by it and no declaration can be allowed unless it can be brought within the four corners of the section. In the same judgment it was held by His Lords that no person can file a suit under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act unless he be entitled to some legal character. In the case of Government of East Pakistan v. Federation of Pakistan and another reported in PLD 1962 (W.P.)
Kar. 353 My Lord Mr. Justice Inamullah (As His Lordship then was) has observed that legal right means right recognized by law and capable of being enforce by power of State, not necessarily in Court of Law.
9. In view of the above judgments I am clear in my mind that the present suit is not maintainable as the relief sought by the applicant would not fall within the scope of section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. Accordingly the revision application is dismissed with no order as to costs.