IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH
CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Civil Rev 52 of 2019 : Muhammad Ramzan Suhag vs.
Federation of Pakistan &Others
For the Petitioner : Mr. Atta Hussain Chandio, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Muhammad Imran Abbasi,
Assistant Attorney General
Date of hearing : 14.02.2022.
Date of announcement : 14.02.2022.
ORDER
Agha Faisal, J. Briefly stated, the applicant seeks to change his date of birth from 1968 to 1976. In such regard a civil suit had been filed and vide judgment dated 14.12.2018 the learned trial Court was pleased to dismiss the suit. The operative findings are reproduced herein below:
“The burden of this issue lies upon plaintiff to prove. Plaintiff examined himself and deposed that actual date of birth of plaintiff is 01.01.1976 but NADRA officials have mistakenly mentioned his date of birth as 01.01.1968 in his CNIC bearing No.43205-1501608-1. After issuance of said CNIC the plaintiff approached to defendant No.2 for said correction but all in vain.
In rebuttal, the defendants examined I/C NADRA Office Ratodero, namely, Jahangeer Bhutto who deposed that actual date of birth of plaintiff is 01.01.1968 as is evident from CNIC form at annexure-“A” submitted by plaintiff with his own signature and thumb impression. On said information, NADRA issued CNIC No.43205-1501608-1 to plaintiff.
I have gone through the evidences adduced by both parties. The plaintiff has relied birth certificate which is issued by Union Council on 15.3.2018. IN cross examination the plaintiff has admitted that he has been issued old MNIC. He admitted that in his old MNIC his date of birth was mentioned as 1968. At the time of issuance of his CNIC in the year 2005, he had produced his MNIC with date of birth 1968. On the same particulars of MNIC he was issued his CNIC. In the year 2005, he received his CNIC. He also admitted in his cross that birth certificate produced by him has been issued by concerned Union Council on 15.3.2018. The plaintiff himself admitted the facts as averred by the defendants in their written statement, it is not denial on the part of plaintiff that this date of birth is wrongly mentioned by defendants, hence the admitted facts by plaintiff need not to be proved in view of Article 113 of Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The plaintiff concealed the facts in the plaint and the plaintiff has not come to Court with clean hands, hence, this issue is answered in negative.
Issue No.2.
The burden of this issue lies upon the defendants to prove, the Senior Executive Officer NADRA deposed that as per record of NADRA office Ratodero, the plaintiff in the year 2005 applied for issuance of his CNIC on the basis of MNIC, such CNIC form bearing No. LN00110376 was submitted with plaintiff’s own photograph and thumb impression. In that CNIC form plaintiff himself mentioned date of birth as 01.01.1968 not 01.01.1976, in the same year NADRA issued CNIC bearing No.43205-1501608-1 to plaintiff.
It is pertinent to re-produce section 40 of NADRA Ordinance, 2000, as under:
“Indemnity. No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against the Federal Government or any Provincial Government or Local authority, any Registration Officer or any other person exercising any power of performing any function under this ordinance, for anything which is in good faith done or purporting or intended to be done under this Ordinance or any rule.”
From the bare reading of section 40 it appears that the indemnity is given to the Federal Government, Provincial Government and Local authorities and Registration Officers regarding act done by them in good faith, therefore, no suit or any criminal proceedings shall lie.
The plaintiff himself has admitted that in the year 2005, he got CNIC with date of birth as 01.01.1968. It is also admitted by plaintiff that on the basis of MNIC, his CNIC was issued, he disclosed his date of birth as 01.01.1968 before NADRA officials. The birth certificate of plaintiff at Ex.11-A, which is recently issued by concerned Union Council dated 15.3.2018. Admittedly the plaintiff was issued his CNIC in the year 2005 with date of birth 01.01.1968, such fact has been admitted by the plaintiff, therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is also barred by Article 120- of Limitation Act 1908.”
2. The applicant filed an appeal, which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 07.05.2019. The operative findings are reproduced herein below:
“The perusal of record shows that appellant/ plaintiff filed suit for declaration and correction of date of birth. Perusal of record shows that appellant/ plaintiff duringtrial produced birth certificate issued by Union Council on 15.3.2018 but record shows that the appellant/ plaintiff was issued old MNIC in the year 2005 showing date of birth viz. 01.01.1968. Perusal of record shows that appellant/ plaintiff in the year 2005 applied for issuance of his CNIC on the basis of MNIC and such CNIC form bearing No. LN00110376 was submitted by appellant/ plaintiff voluntarily with his own photograph and thumb impression and in the same form the date of birth is shown 01.01.1968 and in the same year NADRA authorities issued CNIC No.43205-1501608-1 in favor of appellant/ plaintiff. Moreover, learned trial Court has assigned cogent and plausible reasons in impugned judgment and decree dated 14.12.2018.
From the material available on record, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court are well speaking and well discussed and same do not suffer from any material illegality or irregularity, and do not require any interference by this Court.”
3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that evidence had not been appreciated in its proper perspective and change in date of birth should have been granted by the respective Courts. Learned Assistant Attorney General submits that the record clearly shows that correct date of birth is 1968 and the same was also manifest from the manual NIC of the applicant. He further submitted that the orders below have been rendered in accordance with law and merit no interference.
4. Heard and perused. The question of variation in date of birth is a matter requiring evidence and the same was led before the learned trial Court and the findings are rested thereupon. The said findings include the admission of the applicant regarding 1968 being reflected in the manual NIC, which are even admitted by the applicant’s learned counsel present. The appellate Court also appraised the evidence and remained of the same conclusion as that of the learned trial Court.
5. The original judgment as well as judgment in appeal appear to have considered the record and the law and no infirmity in respect thereof has been identified to this Court. It is settled law that in the presence of concurrent findings, coupled with preponderance of claim supported by evidence, a revisional court ought not to interfere even if another view was possible. Reappraisal of evidence was even otherwise undesirable in revisional proceedings[1].
6. This Court has considered the contentions of the applicant and has noted the inability to cite a single ground based upon which the jurisdiction of this Court could be exercised under section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure. There is no suggestion that the impugned judgments are either an exercise without jurisdiction or a failure to exercise jurisdiction or an act in exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with any material irregularity.
7. It is trite law[2] that where the fora of subordinate jurisdiction had exercised its discretion in one way and that discretion had been judicially exercised on sound principles the supervisory forum would not interfere with that discretion, unless same was contrary to law or usage having the force of law.
8. It is the considered view of this court that the applicant has remained unable to demonstrate any infirmity with the impugned judgments, meriting interference in revision under Section 115 C.P.C, therefore, this revision is hereby dismissed.
JUDGE