2016 Y L R 323
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---
----S. 42---Suit for declaration---Correction of date of birth in CNIC by NADRA---Scope---Contention of plaintiff was that he was born on 22nd May, 1993 but his date of birth had been recorded as 22nd May, 1990---Suit was dismissed concurrently---Validity---Plaintiff produced documents bearing his date of birth as 22-05-1993 which could not be refuted by the authorities---No reason existed to believe that the date of birth mentioned in the documents produced by the plaintiff, was managed one---Plaintiff was neither claiming any right in service nor having any other interest in seeking correction of date of birth in his CNIC---Correction of date of birth of the plaintiff would not adversely affect any right of any other person---No provision existed to prohibit NADRA from rectifying any mistake in the CNIC---Every citizen was required to be registered with the NADRA---Issuance of CNIC would mean that information contained therein was valid and correct, therefore, by not correcting an error on the CNIC, NADRA in fact was not performing its primary function---NADRA was bound to maintain a correct database and to print the correct information on the CNIC---Impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below were set aside and NADRA was directed to rectify the mistake as to date of birth of plaintiff appearing on his CNIC from 22-05-1990 to 22-05-1993---Revision was accepted, in circumstances.
Mrs.Farida Hanif v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior Affairs, Islamabad and another 2011 CLC 511; Regional Commissioner of Income Tax Karachi and 2 others v. Shafi Muhammad Baluch 1997 MLD 2801 and Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Islamabad through Chairman/Secretary v. Junaid Rehmat 2009 YLR 1296 ref.
Muhammad Salah-ud-Din v. NADRA PLD 2012 Lah. 378 rel.
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below could not be treated as sacrosanct and could be interfered with by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction when such findings were based on insufficient evidence, mis-reading of evidence, non-consideration of material evidence, erroneous assumption of fact, patent error of law, consideration of inadmissible evidence, excess or abuse of jurisdiction, arbitrary exercise of power and where unreasonable view on evidence had been taken.
Major Rashid Baig v. Rehmat Ullah Khan and 4 others PLD 2001 SC 443; Muhammad Bakhsh v. Ellahi Bukhsh and others 2003 SCMR 286 and Abdul Sattar v. Mst. Anar Bibi and others PLD 2007 SC 609 rel.
Muhammad Ali Waris Lari for Applicant.
Muhammad Qasim, Standing Counsel.
Ms. Samina Iqbal, Assistant Director, NADRA.
Date of hearing: 12th January, 2015.
IMRAN KHAN VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Interior2016 Y L R 323[Sindh]Before Zafar Ahmed Rajput, JIMRAN KHAN---ApplicantVersusFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Interior and 3 others---RespondentsCivil Revision Application No.5 of 2014, decided on 12/01/2015.
JUDGMENT
ZAFAR AHMED RAJPUT, J.---This Civil Revision Application under section 115, C.P.C. is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 16-1-2014 thereby dismissing the Civil Appeal No. 245 of 2013, the learned IVth Additional District Judge, Karachi (West) maintained the Judgment and Decree dated 19-10-2013 and 21-10-2013 respectively, passed by the learned IVth Senior Civil Judge Karachi (West), whereby the F.C. Suit No. 692 of 2012, filed by the applicant/plaintiff, was dismissed.
2.Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the applicant/plaintiff filed a Civil Suit bearing No. 692 of 2012 before the Court of learned IVth Senior Civil Judge Karachi (West) for declaration/correction and mandatory injunction alleging therein that he was born on 22nd May, 1993 but his date of birth was recorded incorrectly as 22nd May 1990 in his educational record and when he came to know about such mistake, he obtained Age Certificate dated 19.03.2012 from the Medical Superintendent, Services Hospital and Civil Surgeon, Karachi (Government of Sindh) wherein his age was ascertained in between 19 to 20 years. It is also stated that the plaintiff passed his matriculation examination in the year 2007 and the Government of Sindh, Directorate of Schools Education, Karachi issued Notification No.DIR/SCH/KAR (5395-99) 2012 dated 20.04.2012 whereby his date of birth was corrected as 22.05.1993 and such Notification was also published in Sindh Government Gazette. It is further stated the Provisional Secondary School Certificate, issued by the Administration of his School, so also, the Secondary School Certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Karachi confirms his actual date of birth. However, his CNIC, issued by the NADRA (defendant No.2) on 27.09.2010, bears his incorrect date of birth as 22.05.1990, for that he approached the defendant No.2 for its correction, but he was refused and directed by the defendant No.2 to obtain decree, from the Civil Court. It is case of the plaintiff that he is entitled for correction in his date of birth in the record NADRA and the NADRA is under obligation to correct the same. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit with the following prayers:--
(a)Declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to get correction in the date of birth of the plaintiff from "22.5.1990" to "22-05-1993" in the NADRA record and the plaintiff is entitled for issuance of new CNIC with correct date of birth and the defendant No.2 is under the obligation to correct the date of birth of the plaintiff in the CNIC;
(b)Mandatory injunction directing the defendant No.2 to issue new CNIC to the plaintiff with his correct date of birth i.e. 22.05.1993;
(c)Cost of the suit.
(d)Further relief may be granted to the plaintiff which this Honourable Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."
3.The defendants served and filed their joint written statement contesting the suit on legal and factual grounds, wherein they raised preliminary legal objections that the plaintiff's suit is not maintainable and is barred by law. Denying all the adverse contentions of the plaintiff against them, they have stated that in the year 2009 the plaintiff applied for his CNIC vide Form No.KW00542038 showing his date of birth as 22.05.1990, with his own signature and thumb impression and on the basis of information provided by the plaintiff himself NADRA (Islamabad) issued CNIC No.42101-0436491-7 to him. It is also stated that the plaintiff in the year 2010 applied for obtaining his CNIC and submitted lost and Replacement and not only this but in the year 2010 he again applied for modification in his CNIC and after receiving said CNICs the plaintiff remained satisfied and silent till filing of the suit.
4.Out of pleadings following issues were settled by the learned trial Court:--
(1)Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable?
(2)Whether actual date of birth of the plaintiff is 22.05.1993?
(3)Whether date of birth of the plaintiff was mistakenly mentioned as 22.05.1990 in his educational record?
(4)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed?
(5)What should the decree be?
5.In support of his claim the plaintiff examined himself and produced his Affidavit-in-Evidence as Exh.P/1, paid bills of Sui Southern Gas Company and the K.E.S.C. for the month of November, 2012, of his residence as Exh.P/2 & P/3 respectively, letter sent to Secretary Education, Karachi by Headmistress of Govt. Boys Secondary School Major Ziauddin Abbasi, Nazimabad No.2, Karachi, as Exh.P/4, Notification No.DIR/SCH/KAR(5395-99)/2012, dated 20.04.2012 issued by the Director of Schools Education Government of Sindh as Exh.P/5, Government of Gazette dated 26.04.2012 as Exh.P/6, Provisional Certificate issued by the plaintiff's school on 08.05.2012 as Exh.P/7, Secondary School Certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Karachi on 20.06.2012 (showing correct birth of the plaintiff, as per the plaintiff) as Exh.P/8a & P/8b, CNIC of the plaintiff (showing incorrect date of birth of the plaintiff, as per plaintiff) as Exh.P/9, legal notice dated 17/08/2012, and courier receipts as Exh.P/10 to P/12, respectively. Thereafter, learned counsel for the plaintiff closed the side of the plaintiff for evidence.
6.In rebuttal the defendants' representative (Record Clerk) Mumtaz Soomro appeared for his evidence, he produced his Authority Letter, R.T.S. (Registration Tracking System)/Image Form (consist upon 6 pages) Exh.D/1 to D/7, respectively. After that defendants' side for evidence was closed.
7.After assessing the evidence on record, the learned IVth Senior Civil Judge Karachi (West) decided all the issues against the applicant/plaintiff and dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 19-10-2013 and 21-10-2013 respectively. Civil Appeal No. 245 of 2013, arising out of the same was also dismissed by the learned IVth Additional District Judge, Karachi (West) vide judgment and Decree dated 16-01-2014. Aggrieved by the same the applicant/plaintiff has preferred this revision application.
8.Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
9.Mr. Muhammad Ali Waris Lari, learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the judgments passed by the learned Courts below are not in accordance with law, facts of the matter and oral and documentary evidence available on record; and are based upon mis-reading and non-reading of the available on record. He has further contended that the learned Courts blow have not considered the authentic and un-rebutted documents exhibited by the applicant/plaintiff during his evidence and dismissed the suit holding view that the applicant had not produced the "Birth Certificate and Form -"B", without considering the fact that non-production thereof was not fatal to the case of applicant. In support of his contention, the counsel has relied upon following case-law:--
(i)Mrs.Farida Hanif v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior Affairs, Islamabad and another (2011 CLC 511)
(ii)Regional Commissioner of Income Tax Karachi and 2 others v. Shafi Muhammad Baluch (1997 MLD 2801)
(iii)Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Islamabad through Chairman/Secretary v. Junaid Rehmat (2009 YLR 1296)
10.Conversely, Mr. Muhammad Qasim, learned Standing Counsel, has contended that the applicant has obtained his CNIC thrice; once in the year 2009 and twice in the year 2010, and at no time he raised any objection over his date of birth. He has further contended that the date of birth of applicant mentioned in the CNIC and in the NADRA record is not due to any mistake of NADRA authority. Lastly, learned Standing Counsel has contended that it is a case of concurrent findings recorded by the two Courts below; the reversal thereof by the High Court does not fall within the scope of revisional jurisdiction to be exercised by it under section 115, C.P.C.
11.I have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through all the documents appended with this revision application with their assistance and perused the judgments passed by the learned Courts below.
12.I am not impressed by the contention of learned Standing Counsel that the jurisdiction conferred upon High Court under section 115, C.P.C. is limited for the reason that it is well settled by now that the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below cannot be treated as sacrosanct and can be interfered with by this Court under its revisional jurisdiction conferred under section 115 of C.P.C. when the findings are based on insufficient evidence, misreading of evidence, non-consideration of material evidence, erroneous assumptions of facts, patent error of law, consideration of inadmissible evidence, excess or abuse of jurisdiction, arbitrary exercise of power and where unreasonable view on evidence has been taken. Reliance in this regard may be placed upon the case of Major Rashid Baig v. Rehmat Ullah Khan and 4 others (PLD 2001 SC 443); Muhammad Bakhsh v. Ellahi Bukhsh and others (2003 SCMR 286) and Abdul Sattar v. Mst. Anar Bibi and others (PLD 2007 SC 609).
13.In the case in hand, the applicant/ plaintiff has produced in his evidence Notification bearing No. DIR/SCH/KAR (5395-99) 2012, dated 20.04.2012, issued by the Director Schools Education, Government of Sindh (Exh.P/5), Government Gazette, dated 26.04.2012 (Exh.P/6) and Secondary School Certificate, issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Karachi on 20.06.2012 (Exh.P/8a). The said documents bear the date of birth of applicant as 22-5-1993. The respondents/ defendants have not refuted the authenticity of these documents. There is no reason to believe that the date of birth mentioned in said documents is managed one. Moreover, the applicant is neither claiming any right in service nor having any other interest of whatsoever nature in seeking correction of date of birth in his CNIC, which would not adversely affect any right of any other person. There appears no provision in National Database and Registration Authority (National Identity Card) Rules, 2002 or in National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 (Ordinance) that prohibits NADRA from rectifying any mistake in the CNIC. On the contrary, as observed in the case of Muhammad Salah-ud-Din v. NADRA (PLD 2012 Lahore 378), every citizen is required to be registered with the NADRA and to effectuate the registration every citizen is issued a national identity card and its issuance means that the information contained therein is valid and correct. Therefore, by not correcting an error in its data base or on the CNIC the respondent is in fact going against the spirit of the Ordinance, and is not performing its primary function. It is also perpetuating a wrong in its own data base, which negates the purpose of a national identity card. The respondent is bound to maintain a correct database and to print the correct information on the CNIC.
14.For the foregoing facts and reasons, I allow this Civil Revision Application by setting aside the judgments of learned Courts below i.e. Judgment dated 19-10-2013, passed by the learned IVth Senior Civil Judge Karachi (West), in F.C. Suit No. 692 of 2012 and Judgment dated 16-01-2014 passed by the learned IVth Additional District Judge, Karachi (West) in Civil Appeal No. 245 of 2013 and direct the respondent No. 2 to rectify the mistake as to date of birth of applicant appearing on his CNIC from 22-05-1990 to 22-5-1993. However, there will be no order as to costs.
ZC/I-2/SindhRevision allowed.
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---
----S. 42---Suit for declaration---Correction of date of birth in CNIC by NADRA---Scope---Contention of plaintiff was that he was born on 22nd May, 1993 but his date of birth had been recorded as 22nd May, 1990---Suit was dismissed concurrently---Validity---Plaintiff produced documents bearing his date of birth as 22-05-1993 which could not be refuted by the authorities---No reason existed to believe that the date of birth mentioned in the documents produced by the plaintiff, was managed one---Plaintiff was neither claiming any right in service nor having any other interest in seeking correction of date of birth in his CNIC---Correction of date of birth of the plaintiff would not adversely affect any right of any other person---No provision existed to prohibit NADRA from rectifying any mistake in the CNIC---Every citizen was required to be registered with the NADRA---Issuance of CNIC would mean that information contained therein was valid and correct, therefore, by not correcting an error on the CNIC, NADRA in fact was not performing its primary function---NADRA was bound to maintain a correct database and to print the correct information on the CNIC---Impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below were set aside and NADRA was directed to rectify the mistake as to date of birth of plaintiff appearing on his CNIC from 22-05-1990 to 22-05-1993---Revision was accepted, in circumstances.
Mrs.Farida Hanif v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior Affairs, Islamabad and another 2011 CLC 511; Regional Commissioner of Income Tax Karachi and 2 others v. Shafi Muhammad Baluch 1997 MLD 2801 and Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Islamabad through Chairman/Secretary v. Junaid Rehmat 2009 YLR 1296 ref.
Muhammad Salah-ud-Din v. NADRA PLD 2012 Lah. 378 rel.
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below could not be treated as sacrosanct and could be interfered with by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction when such findings were based on insufficient evidence, mis-reading of evidence, non-consideration of material evidence, erroneous assumption of fact, patent error of law, consideration of inadmissible evidence, excess or abuse of jurisdiction, arbitrary exercise of power and where unreasonable view on evidence had been taken.
Major Rashid Baig v. Rehmat Ullah Khan and 4 others PLD 2001 SC 443; Muhammad Bakhsh v. Ellahi Bukhsh and others 2003 SCMR 286 and Abdul Sattar v. Mst. Anar Bibi and others PLD 2007 SC 609 rel.
Muhammad Ali Waris Lari for Applicant.
Muhammad Qasim, Standing Counsel.
Ms. Samina Iqbal, Assistant Director, NADRA.
Date of hearing: 12th January, 2015.
JUDGMENT
ZAFAR AHMED RAJPUT, J.---This Civil Revision Application under section 115, C.P.C. is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 16-1-2014 thereby dismissing the Civil Appeal No. 245 of 2013, the learned IVth Additional District Judge, Karachi (West) maintained the Judgment and Decree dated 19-10-2013 and 21-10-2013 respectively, passed by the learned IVth Senior Civil Judge Karachi (West), whereby the F.C. Suit No. 692 of 2012, filed by the applicant/plaintiff, was dismissed.
2.Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the applicant/plaintiff filed a Civil Suit bearing No. 692 of 2012 before the Court of learned IVth Senior Civil Judge Karachi (West) for declaration/correction and mandatory injunction alleging therein that he was born on 22nd May, 1993 but his date of birth was recorded incorrectly as 22nd May 1990 in his educational record and when he came to know about such mistake, he obtained Age Certificate dated 19.03.2012 from the Medical Superintendent, Services Hospital and Civil Surgeon, Karachi (Government of Sindh) wherein his age was ascertained in between 19 to 20 years. It is also stated that the plaintiff passed his matriculation examination in the year 2007 and the Government of Sindh, Directorate of Schools Education, Karachi issued Notification No.DIR/SCH/KAR (5395-99) 2012 dated 20.04.2012 whereby his date of birth was corrected as 22.05.1993 and such Notification was also published in Sindh Government Gazette. It is further stated the Provisional Secondary School Certificate, issued by the Administration of his School, so also, the Secondary School Certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Karachi confirms his actual date of birth. However, his CNIC, issued by the NADRA (defendant No.2) on 27.09.2010, bears his incorrect date of birth as 22.05.1990, for that he approached the defendant No.2 for its correction, but he was refused and directed by the defendant No.2 to obtain decree, from the Civil Court. It is case of the plaintiff that he is entitled for correction in his date of birth in the record NADRA and the NADRA is under obligation to correct the same. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit with the following prayers:--
(a)Declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to get correction in the date of birth of the plaintiff from "22.5.1990" to "22-05-1993" in the NADRA record and the plaintiff is entitled for issuance of new CNIC with correct date of birth and the defendant No.2 is under the obligation to correct the date of birth of the plaintiff in the CNIC;
(b)Mandatory injunction directing the defendant No.2 to issue new CNIC to the plaintiff with his correct date of birth i.e. 22.05.1993;
(c)Cost of the suit.
(d)Further relief may be granted to the plaintiff which this Honourable Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."
3.The defendants served and filed their joint written statement contesting the suit on legal and factual grounds, wherein they raised preliminary legal objections that the plaintiff's suit is not maintainable and is barred by law. Denying all the adverse contentions of the plaintiff against them, they have stated that in the year 2009 the plaintiff applied for his CNIC vide Form No.KW00542038 showing his date of birth as 22.05.1990, with his own signature and thumb impression and on the basis of information provided by the plaintiff himself NADRA (Islamabad) issued CNIC No.42101-0436491-7 to him. It is also stated that the plaintiff in the year 2010 applied for obtaining his CNIC and submitted lost and Replacement and not only this but in the year 2010 he again applied for modification in his CNIC and after receiving said CNICs the plaintiff remained satisfied and silent till filing of the suit.
4.Out of pleadings following issues were settled by the learned trial Court:--
(1)Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable?
(2)Whether actual date of birth of the plaintiff is 22.05.1993?
(3)Whether date of birth of the plaintiff was mistakenly mentioned as 22.05.1990 in his educational record?
(4)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed?
(5)What should the decree be?
5.In support of his claim the plaintiff examined himself and produced his Affidavit-in-Evidence as Exh.P/1, paid bills of Sui Southern Gas Company and the K.E.S.C. for the month of November, 2012, of his residence as Exh.P/2 & P/3 respectively, letter sent to Secretary Education, Karachi by Headmistress of Govt. Boys Secondary School Major Ziauddin Abbasi, Nazimabad No.2, Karachi, as Exh.P/4, Notification No.DIR/SCH/KAR(5395-99)/2012, dated 20.04.2012 issued by the Director of Schools Education Government of Sindh as Exh.P/5, Government of Gazette dated 26.04.2012 as Exh.P/6, Provisional Certificate issued by the plaintiff's school on 08.05.2012 as Exh.P/7, Secondary School Certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Karachi on 20.06.2012 (showing correct birth of the plaintiff, as per the plaintiff) as Exh.P/8a & P/8b, CNIC of the plaintiff (showing incorrect date of birth of the plaintiff, as per plaintiff) as Exh.P/9, legal notice dated 17/08/2012, and courier receipts as Exh.P/10 to P/12, respectively. Thereafter, learned counsel for the plaintiff closed the side of the plaintiff for evidence.
6.In rebuttal the defendants' representative (Record Clerk) Mumtaz Soomro appeared for his evidence, he produced his Authority Letter, R.T.S. (Registration Tracking System)/Image Form (consist upon 6 pages) Exh.D/1 to D/7, respectively. After that defendants' side for evidence was closed.
7.After assessing the evidence on record, the learned IVth Senior Civil Judge Karachi (West) decided all the issues against the applicant/plaintiff and dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 19-10-2013 and 21-10-2013 respectively. Civil Appeal No. 245 of 2013, arising out of the same was also dismissed by the learned IVth Additional District Judge, Karachi (West) vide judgment and Decree dated 16-01-2014. Aggrieved by the same the applicant/plaintiff has preferred this revision application.
8.Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
9.Mr. Muhammad Ali Waris Lari, learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the judgments passed by the learned Courts below are not in accordance with law, facts of the matter and oral and documentary evidence available on record; and are based upon mis-reading and non-reading of the available on record. He has further contended that the learned Courts blow have not considered the authentic and un-rebutted documents exhibited by the applicant/plaintiff during his evidence and dismissed the suit holding view that the applicant had not produced the "Birth Certificate and Form -"B", without considering the fact that non-production thereof was not fatal to the case of applicant. In support of his contention, the counsel has relied upon following case-law:--
(i)Mrs.Farida Hanif v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior Affairs, Islamabad and another (2011 CLC 511)
(ii)Regional Commissioner of Income Tax Karachi and 2 others v. Shafi Muhammad Baluch (1997 MLD 2801)
(iii)Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Islamabad through Chairman/Secretary v. Junaid Rehmat (2009 YLR 1296)
10.Conversely, Mr. Muhammad Qasim, learned Standing Counsel, has contended that the applicant has obtained his CNIC thrice; once in the year 2009 and twice in the year 2010, and at no time he raised any objection over his date of birth. He has further contended that the date of birth of applicant mentioned in the CNIC and in the NADRA record is not due to any mistake of NADRA authority. Lastly, learned Standing Counsel has contended that it is a case of concurrent findings recorded by the two Courts below; the reversal thereof by the High Court does not fall within the scope of revisional jurisdiction to be exercised by it under section 115, C.P.C.
11.I have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through all the documents appended with this revision application with their assistance and perused the judgments passed by the learned Courts below.
12.I am not impressed by the contention of learned Standing Counsel that the jurisdiction conferred upon High Court under section 115, C.P.C. is limited for the reason that it is well settled by now that the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below cannot be treated as sacrosanct and can be interfered with by this Court under its revisional jurisdiction conferred under section 115 of C.P.C. when the findings are based on insufficient evidence, misreading of evidence, non-consideration of material evidence, erroneous assumptions of facts, patent error of law, consideration of inadmissible evidence, excess or abuse of jurisdiction, arbitrary exercise of power and where unreasonable view on evidence has been taken. Reliance in this regard may be placed upon the case of Major Rashid Baig v. Rehmat Ullah Khan and 4 others (PLD 2001 SC 443); Muhammad Bakhsh v. Ellahi Bukhsh and others (2003 SCMR 286) and Abdul Sattar v. Mst. Anar Bibi and others (PLD 2007 SC 609).
13.In the case in hand, the applicant/ plaintiff has produced in his evidence Notification bearing No. DIR/SCH/KAR (5395-99) 2012, dated 20.04.2012, issued by the Director Schools Education, Government of Sindh (Exh.P/5), Government Gazette, dated 26.04.2012 (Exh.P/6) and Secondary School Certificate, issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Karachi on 20.06.2012 (Exh.P/8a). The said documents bear the date of birth of applicant as 22-5-1993. The respondents/ defendants have not refuted the authenticity of these documents. There is no reason to believe that the date of birth mentioned in said documents is managed one. Moreover, the applicant is neither claiming any right in service nor having any other interest of whatsoever nature in seeking correction of date of birth in his CNIC, which would not adversely affect any right of any other person. There appears no provision in National Database and Registration Authority (National Identity Card) Rules, 2002 or in National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 (Ordinance) that prohibits NADRA from rectifying any mistake in the CNIC. On the contrary, as observed in the case of Muhammad Salah-ud-Din v. NADRA (PLD 2012 Lahore 378), every citizen is required to be registered with the NADRA and to effectuate the registration every citizen is issued a national identity card and its issuance means that the information contained therein is valid and correct. Therefore, by not correcting an error in its data base or on the CNIC the respondent is in fact going against the spirit of the Ordinance, and is not performing its primary function. It is also perpetuating a wrong in its own data base, which negates the purpose of a national identity card. The respondent is bound to maintain a correct database and to print the correct information on the CNIC.
14.For the foregoing facts and reasons, I allow this Civil Revision Application by setting aside the judgments of learned Courts below i.e. Judgment dated 19-10-2013, passed by the learned IVth Senior Civil Judge Karachi (West), in F.C. Suit No. 692 of 2012 and Judgment dated 16-01-2014 passed by the learned IVth Additional District Judge, Karachi (West) in Civil Appeal No. 245 of 2013 and direct the respondent No. 2 to rectify the mistake as to date of birth of applicant appearing on his CNIC from 22-05-1990 to 22-5-1993. However, there will be no order as to costs.
ZC/I-2/SindhRevision allowed.
0 Comments