M. JAVED BUTTAR, J. -- This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.1.1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Lahore whereby the appeal of respondents Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education and the Government of Punjab/appellants against the judgment and decree dated 20.6.1993 passed by the Civil Judge, Lahore has been accepted and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court has been set aside.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner Abdul Ghafoor Shaheen/plaintiff brought a suit for declaration claiming therein that his date of birth as recorded in his service record and on the educational certificates/degrees as 21.8.1935 has been incorrectly entered and his correct date of birth is 21.8.1938. He also prayed for mandatory injunction against the respondents/defendants for incorporation of his correct date of birth in all the relevant record. The suit was contested by the respondents. After framing the necessary issues and after recording of evidence, the Trial Court decreed the petitioner's suit on 20.6.1993. The respondent's appeal was accepted and the suit was dismissed. The said judgment was assailed by the petitioner in revision before this Court, which was accepted and the case was remanded to the Appellate Court for fresh decision. The Appellate Court once again vide judgment and decree dated 13.7.1995 accepted the respondent's the suit.
The petitioner again came to this Court in Civil Revision No. 1511/1995 and the case was again remanded to the Appellate Court on 13.12.1998 for fresh decision of the appeal. The Appellate Court through the impugned judgment has given a decision on merits on all the issues, and as mentioned above, has accepted the respondent's appeal and has set aside the judgment and decree dated 20.6.1993 passed by the Trial Court in favour of the petitioner.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also seen the record copy of which is attached with the Civil Revision No. 1511 of 1995.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned judgment suffers from mis-reading of evidence and the statement of PW-1 Muhammad Abdullah, the maternal uncle of the petitioner has conclusively proved that the petitioner was born in 1938 and not in 1935.
5. PW-1 Muhammad Abdullah got recorded his statement on 24.4.1993 and at that time he was 86 years of age. He although stated that the petitioner was born in 1938 but could not remember as to when the petitioner's other brothers and sisters were born. Similarly he could not state as to when his own children were born. His memory is, therefore, not trustworthy. The petitioner in his own statement as PW-2 stated that he appeared in Matriculation Examination in the year 1955 and gave his date of birth as that of 1935. His statement also shows that in the said examination he qualified only in the English Paper and thereafter in 1967 he again appeared in Matriculation Examination for passing the rest of subjects and at that time also he gave his date of birth as 21.8.1935. He has further stated in his cross-examination that his father was a literate person and, therefore, it cannot be concluded that the entry of the petitioner's date of birth contained in the Matriculation Certificate is the result of lack of proper guidance. Furthermore the petitioner throughout has remained in the Service on the basis of date of birth as given by him as well as given in the Matriculation Certificate and no evidence has been brought on the record to show that the entries made in the Matriculation Certificate and also in the service record are incorrect because the same were provided by the petitioner himself. I am of the view that the petitioner has miserably failed to prove that the long standing entries of his date of birth duly recorded on the Matriculation Certificate and in his service record are incorrect. This petition has no merit, which is dismissed in limine.