1. ' The respondent herein had filed a suit being Civil Suit No,,1101 of 1991 in the Court of VIIIth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi (South) in the year 1991 and prayed for the following relief:-
(a) To declare that the plaintiff was born on 12-12-1937 and the date mentioned in Matriculation Certificate is incorrect.
(b) To direct the defendant to correct the date of birth in its record and issue Matriculation Certificate with correct date i,e, 12-12-1937.
(c) Any better relief/reliefs which this Honorable Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. ' Averments in the plaint are that the respondent was born on 12-12-1937 in Gujranwala. He passed Matriculation Examination in the year 1950 and thereafter Intermediate and B.A. And joined Sindh Police Service as A.S.I. And lastly he was working as D.S.P. He stated in the plaint that when his mother came to Karachi she stated that she was married to the father of respondent on 16-4-1936, therefore, the date of birth in the Matriculation certificate which was dated 12-8-1935, was not correct, and through the suit he prayed for the relief. Suit was filed initially against University of Punjab since no written statement was filed suit proceeded ex parte and the learned trial Court held as follows: "Moreover as admitted by the plaintiff that he has passed his Matriculation Examination in the year 1950 and since then he' remained, as such in my humble view the suit filed by the plaintiff under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act is hopelessly time-barred. Moreover Declaration sought for by the plaintiff does not fall under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act as the plaintiff has not sought for any relief in respect of his legal character in sense of status nor with regard to any right, as such, suit filed by the plaintiff is also barred under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act."
3. ' Appeal was filed which was transferred to the Court of IVth Additional District Judge, Karachi (South) against the abovementioned impugned order by the respondent, and when the notice was served on University of Punjab one Mr. Muhammad Imran Farooq, a Clerk of University of Punjab raised objections inter alia, maintaining that the Courts at Karachi have no jurisdiction to grant the relief. While the appeal was pending an application under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. Was filed inter alia, maintaining that Secretary, Home Department, Government of Sindh and Inspector-General, Sindh Police be also impleaded as defendants and the Court allowed that application. Thereafter, learned Appellate Court set aside the impugned judgment and decree and remanded the same to the VIII Senior Civil Judge, Karachi (South) with the directions that the defendants Nos.2 and 3 be given chance to file their written statement and after recording evidence of the parties on the issues, decide the suit afresh. Government of Sindh has filed this Revision Petition against the impugned order passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Karachi (South) remanding the case and have stated that the judgment given by the Appellate Authority is patently illegal and in violation of settled legal principles.
4. ' The contention of the learned Additional Advocate-General while assailing the impugned order is that the initial suit was filed against the University of Punjab which has no office in Karachi and does not reside within the jurisdiction of any of the Courts in Karachi, therefore, by virtue of the principles of section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure Courts at Karachi had no jurisdiction. His second contention is that at the appellate stage no doubt the Home Secretary and I.-G.P. Was impleaded as party by virtue of an order passed by the Appellate Court allowing application under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. Yet no relief was sought against them. His third contention was that the purpose of filing the suit was to enhance the date of his retirement which would have ordinarily fallen on 11th August, 1995 as he would be completing 60 years of service on that day, as per the date of birth mentioned in the Matriculation certificate and since continuation in service to be until the age of superannuation is one of the terms of service, therefore, Civil Courts had no jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of Civil Court in terms of section 9 of C.P.C. Would be specifically barred in view of the embargo placed by Article 212 of the Constitution. Further contention urged was that assuming the respondent was born on 12-12-1937 he has completed Matriculation examination in 1950 i,e, at the age of 13 years as the relevant time four years of primary education and seven years of secondary education were required to pass matric. He has urged that if this length of 11 years to pass the Matriculation examination is taken into consideration then the Courts will have to hold that the respondent had started his education at the age of two years and passed matriculation examination at the age of 13 years that would itself create some kind of record of a sort in the educational history and, therefore, he stated that judging from any angle, the suit filed would not be maintainable.
5. ' Learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Imran Ahmad, contended that this Revision Application filed by applicants is hopelessly time-barred and could not be entertained until and unless the condo nation application has been granted. The condo nation application has been filed but no such order has been passed on the condo nation application. Even otherwise, I have come to the conclusion that Civil Courts have no jurisdiction, therefore, the appellate order was void order and the limitation does not run against the void order. I would, therefore, overrule the legal objection urged by the learned counsel for the respondent.
6. ' Reverting to the contention of Mr. M. Lqbal Raad, Additional A.-G. Admittedly original case was filed against Punjab University. Punjab University has no office in Karachi. The suit filed at Karachi against the Punjab University and that the prayer so made by the respondent was without jurisdiction.
7. Admittedly, the relief sought was to avoid retirement on 11th August, 1995. To be retired from service is one such term and condition of service which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of Services Tribunal. Article 212 of the Constitution bars jurisdiction of any other Court or Tribunal in relation to the terms and conditions of the service which would also include the jurisdiction of Civil Court which is conferred on Civil Court under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This is the consistent view of Honorable Supreme Court and all High Courts. The jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain and grant relief in such suits was barred by law. For this additional reason suit filed by the respondent was not maintainable and the plaint ought to have been rejected in terms of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C.
8. ' At the appellate stage functionaries of Government of Sindh were impleaded as party yet no relief was sought against them. In my humble view, learned IVth Additional District Judge, Karachi (South) who allowed the application erred in law by impleading those official respondents as codefendants more particularly no relief was sought against such co-defendants. Application under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. Was allowed in an unlawful manner. The intention of the plaintiff by filing such application was to confer jurisdiction on the Civil Courts at Karachi. Such application was maliciously filed by the respondent. Honorable Supreme Court in a case reported as Rashad Ehsan and others v. Bashir Ahmad and another (PLD 1989 SC 146) has held that sometimes law is called as an ass but as far as possible the Judges should avoid to be so. For these reasons I would hold that the application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. Allowed by the Appellate Judge as not correct.
9. ' This brings me to the facts which were narrated in the plaint itself. Assuming that the respondent was born on 12-12-1937 it would mean that he started schooling at the age of two years and completed matric at the age of thirteen years In my humble view, such contention of the respondent on the face of record is not tenable. Learned Trial Court has stated in the judgment that the respondent himself has given his date of birth to the University Authorities when he appeared in Matric examination. All along he has remained silent. Only at the verge of his retirement it has dawned upon him that he was born on another date on the basis of his mother's statement and that too is based upon Nikahnama. This Court can take judicial notice of the fact that at the relevant time i,e, 1936 there was no existence of Nikahnama. Trial Court correctly judged that the respondent was sought negative relief which could not be granted to respondent in terms of section 42 of the Specific Relief Act.
10. ' For all these reasons, after hearing that parties, this Revision Application is allowed and the order passed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Karachi (South) impugned in this case, is set aside and the order passed by the Civil Judge is restored.