' The brief facts out of which the present revision petition arise are that the respondent/plaintiff No,1 filed a suit for declaration before the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Gujranwala, for change of his name. The contents of the plaint reveals that the name of respondent/plaintiff No,1 was Zia-ur- Rehman which he has now changed and replaced by Umar Saeed Saddal son of Saeed Ahmad Saddal. The contents of the plaint further reveals that respondent/plaintiff No,1 Zia-ur-Rehmai requested the petitioner to introduce his new name in the record of the Army Public Intermediate Science College, Gujranwala Cantt. Where respondent/plaintiff No,1 is studying in 10th Class under the Registration No,0280519076. The petitioner refused to accept' the request of the respondent/plaintiff No,1. The petitioners filed written statement, controverted the allegations levelled in the plaint. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- -
(1) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own words and conduct to file the suit? OPD
(2) Whether the plaintiff has changed his name from Zia-ur-Rehman to Umar Saeed and as such, is entitled to get it rectified in the record of defendants Nos.1 and 2? OPP
(3) Relief.
' The learned trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 6-5-2002. The petitioner being aggrieved preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, who dismissed the same vide judgment and decree dated 14-12-2002. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this civil revision after the prescribed period prescribed under the provisions of law. The petitioner has also filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the petitioner after securing the certified copies of the documents drafted the revision petition on 14-4-2003 and sent the same to the concerned Deputy Secretary (Legal) for signing. The Deputy Secretary (Legal) Muhammad Ashraf Bhatti, who had to sign the papers was on duty for checking and control of Examination Centres out of the premises of the Board, therefore, the delay is not intentional and deliberate. In support of his contention, he relied upon West Pakistan Province v. Hakim Abdur Rahim Khan 1988 CLC 1791 and Saleh Shah v. The Sindh Industrial Trading Estates Ltd. And others PLD 1962 Kar.
608. He further submits that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to take the cognizance of the Matter by virtue of section 29 of the Punjab Board Act, 1976. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:-- ' Muhammad Hamdan Shaikh v. Chairman, Board of Secondary Education, Nazimabad, Karachi and 2 others PLD 1998 Kar. 59, Government of East Pakistan v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1962 Kar.
353 and Shafqatullah Qadri v. University of Karachi PLD 1954 Sindh 107.
' He further submits that judgments of both the Courts below are result of misreading and non- reading of the record. He further submits that respondent/plaintiff No,1 did not provide sufficient cause in the contents of the plaint for the change of his name.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
4. It is settled principle of law that section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable where the time is prescribed in the statute itself by virtue of section 29 of the Limitation Act. In arriving to this conclusion I am fortified by the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Allah Dino and another v. Muhammad Shah and others 2001 SCMR 286. The second contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner that Civil Court had no jurisdiction in view of section 29 of the Punjab Board Act, 1976, has also no force in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Zafar-ul-Ahsan's case PLD 1960 SC 113. The aforesaid proposition of law is also supported by the judgment of this B Court in Board of Intermediate Secondary Education, Lahore v. Syed Khalid Mahmood 1985 CLC 657. It is pertinent to mention here that the judgment of this Court is upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court. It is also admitted fact that both the Courts below have given concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner. The learned counsel of'the petitioner failed to point out any piece of evidence which was misread by the Courts below, therefore, revision 'petition is liable to C be dismissed as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Anwar Zaman and 5 others v. Bahadur Sher and others 2000 SCMR 431.
' In view of what has been discussed above, this revision petition has no merits and the same is dismissed on merits as well ds time-barren.