2012 C L C 1958
[Baluchistan]
Before Mrs. Syeda Tahira Safdar, J
Mst. FAIQA ABDUL HAYEE ----Petitioner
Versus
CHAIRMAN, BALOCHISTAN BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY
EDUCATION, QUETTA ----Respondent
Civil Revision No. 409 of 2011, decided on 5th September, 2012.
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) ---
----S. 42---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.120 ---Suit for declaration seeking correction of
date of birth on secondary school certificate and on the record of Board of Secondary
Education ---Limitation ---Suit was dismissed concurrently ---Contention of the plaintiff was
that statements of her parents were authentic evidence which could not be disbelieved ---
Validity ---No explanation was given by plaintiff and her parents as to when she was in the
knowledge about the wrong entry pertaining to her date of birth or why did her parents and
she remained silent for a period of 23 years ---Plaintiff did not tender into evidence the
diaries she alleged were the source of her knowledge as to her correct date of birth, and suit
was correctly assessed by courts below to be time -barred ---Statements of parents, although
were basic and best evidence in respect of date of birth, but mere assertion of parents could
not be completely relied upo n---Such statements needed corroboration by accompanying
facts and .independent evidence ---No extract from Birth Register of Municipal Corporation,
or Form -B of Data Registration Authority were produced ---No relief could be claimed on
such unspecific evide nce---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.
Sher Baz Khan v The State PLD 2003 SC 849 and No such reference found PLD
2008 Lah. 659 ref.
Nasir Khan Yousafzai for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 24th July, 2012.
JUDGMENT
MRS. SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR, J .--- Being aggrieved of the judgment dated 31st
March, 2011 of Civil Judge -IV, Quetta, whereby the suit filed by the petitioner for correction
of her date of birth was dismissed for want of limitation, and being devoid of merit s, and
judgment dated 20th September, 2011 of Additional District Judge -I, Quetta, whereby the
appeal preferred against the order was also dismissed, instant petition had been filed by the
petitioner. Both the judgments were challenged by the petitioner wh ile raising contention that
the courts below not only committed error of law, but also adopted an erroneous and
defective procedure. Further, due to misreading and non -reading of the evidence produced by
the parties, and with wrong assumption decisions wer e arrived, which were not sustainable.
Furthermore, the dictum laid down by the superior courts that the time limit starts from the
date of knowledge was overlooked and an erroneous decision was given by holding that the
suit being time -barred. It was pray ed that both the judgments of the courts below be set aside
and the suit filed by her be decreed as prayed for.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the most authentic evidence was
produced in shape of plaintiff's witness No.1 (P.W. -1) and P.W. -2 i.e. mother and father of
the petitioner and as per law their evidence cannot be disbelieved. He.relied on
Sher Baz Khan v The State PLD 2003 SC 849
It was further contended that issue of limitation was wrongly decided by the. courts below .
Both the courts. below failed to consider that the time starts from the date of knowledge. He
placed reliance on:
(No such reference found) PLD 2008 Lahore 659
The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the respondent in its reply
admitted the contention of the petitioner as a whole, which cannot be overlooked.
3. It is to be noted that despite effecting of service, and filing of parawise comments, none
appeared on the date fixed for hearing. Keeping in view the fact that several opportunities
were given, but no appearance on behalf of the respondent the parawise comments already
filed were treated as arguments on behalf of the respondent.
4. The petitioner being the plaintiff sought declaration of her date of birth as 25th Decem ber,
1973 instead of 25th January, 1970, with further prayer of its correction in the record
maintained by the respondent. It was her contention that inadvertently due to unawareness of
future consequences her date of birth was wrongly mentioned in the sch ool record by her
father at the time of her admission in the school. She described her date of knowledge about
.the wrong entry in recent days before filing of the suit, and as soon she came into knowledge
of the fact she approached the court. The copy of the written statement filed by the
respondent had not been annexed with the petition. But from the contents of the judgment
dated 31st March, 2011 of the trial Court, it appeared that the respondent being the defendant
to the suit strongly contested the su it, by way of filing written statement on both legal and
factual grounds. The trial court not only found the suit to be time -barred, but also arrived to
the conclusion that there was only mere assertion on the part of the plaintiff, and no case was
made ou t on merits. The appellate court on appeal filed by the petitioner arrived to the same
findings. Still feeling aggrieved instant petition had been filed.
5. The petitioner while filing a suit for declaration sought correction of her date or birth from
25th January, 1970 to 25th December, 1973, with further prayer of issuance of revised
Secondary School Certificate in her favour with correct date of birth. In support of her
contention she produced two witnesses. Plaintiff's Witness No.1 (P.W. -1) Suryia Abd ul
Hayee, her mother and P.W. -2 Abdul Hayee her father. The statements of both the witnesses
were identical. According to both the witnesses the correct date of birth of the petitioner was
1973, but at the time of her admission in school her maternal uncle Fatahullah got recorded
her year of birth as 1970 instead of the correct one. The petitioner while appearing before the
court in addition to the same only stated that her maternal uncle got recorded her date of birth
on presumption. She described her actu al date of birth as 25th December, 1973. It was her
statement that while observing diaries of her father she got acquainted with her actual date of
birth.
6. In rebuttal only the representative of the respondent recorded statement. The statement
only per tains to the record maintained by the concerned office. It was observed that in the
parawise comments filed before this court, the respondent contrary to its own stand before the
trial court admitted the claim of the petitioner as a whole with further cont ention that "the
petitioner was neither in service, nor any prejudice would be caused to any individual. Further,
prayer for correction looks natural, and genuine. It was further prayed that while considering
the peculiar circumstances the petition be disp osed of'. The respondent fully contested the suit
before the trial court, but before this court admitted the claim of the petitioner. A contrary
stand was taken, which is had in eyes of law.
7. The admission made by the respondent is of less significance , and has less effect on merits
of the case. Because it only pertains to the record maintained by the Board/respondent. Rather
it is the petitioner, who had to establish her correct date of birth coupled with the fact that she
remained ignorant about the f act of wrong entry made in the record to cover up the period of
limitation. In present case the petitioner produced her parents as witnesses, who though
described her year of birth as 1973 with contention that the date was wrongly mentioned as
she was got admitted in school by her maternal uncle. But there is no explanation by the
witnesses and also by the petitioner that since 1986 when she appeared in Matriculation
Examination, and Secondary School Certificate issued in her favour in year 1987, she was in
knowledge about wrong entry pertaining to her date of birth, why she and her parents
remained silent for a period of more than 23 years? She described her source of knowledge
the diaries maintained by her father, but failed to tender them in evidence thro ugh P.W. -2 her
father. The provided period for filing a suit whereby a declaration has been sought is six
years from the date when right to sue accures. But the, petitioner failed to describe the date
when she acquainted with the fact, approached the conce rned Authorities for the purpose, and
when the request so made was declined. The courts below after assessing the material)
arrived to correct findings to the extent of limitation, which needs no interference.
8. As far as merits of the case are concerne d though the evidence of the parents of a person is
the basic, and best evidence in respect of date of birth, but on their (parents) mere assertion
complete reliance cannot be made. The statements so made need corroboration by
accompanying facts and indepe ndent evidence. But in present case there was no evidence to
the effect. Neither any extract from Birth Register I maintained by the then Municipal
Corporation, nor Form -B of Data Registration Authority were ;produced containing the
relevant entry. Mere ad mission of the respondent before this court is of no legal consequence
nor 'establishes the case of the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner slept over her right, and
on such unspecific evidence the relief as claimed cannot be granted in her favour.
9. Therefore in view of the above discussion there are no merits in the petition which is
hereby dismissed, with no orders as to costs.
KMZ/91/Q Petition dismissed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.