COMPLETE : 2018 YLRN 55 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ZAHIR SAJJAD
Side Opponent : NATIONAL DATABASE AND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY
S. 42---Suit for declaration---correct ion of Date of birth in educational testimonials---Scope---Contention of plaintiff was that his Date of birth was 10-01-1986 instead of 10-09-1992---Suit was dismissed concurrently--- Validity--- Plaintiff through oral and documentary evidence had proved that his actual Date of birth was 10-01-1986 and not 10-09-1992---Documents produced by the plaintiff were of ficial record and their authenticity could not be doubted---Findings recorded by the Trial Court were based on presumptions---Appellate Court without formulating points for determination had relied upon the stance of defendants and had not considered the impact of oral and documentary evidence of plaintiff---Both the Courts below had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them---Findings recorded by the Courts below were result of mis-reading and non-reading of evidence---Impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below were set aside and suit was decreed---Revision was allowed in circumstances.
: 2018 CLCN 10 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION LAHORE
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SHEIKHUPURA
Ss. 42 & 54---Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act (XIII of 1976), Ss. 29 & 31---Date of birth , correct ion of ---Ex parte decree, setting aside of ---Petitioner, Board of Secondary Education against which an ex parte decree was passed in a suit for correct ion of Date of birth of respondent---Trial Court, on application of the Board set aside ex parte judgment and decree but Lower Appellate Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside order passed by Trial Court---Validity---Trial Court had passed ex parte decree after taking into consideration evidence produced by respondent and Board had failed to defend the suit at the relevant time---No reason was available with Trial Court to set aside ex parte judgment especially when none of the grounds raised by the Board in its application was made out from the record---Lower Appellate Court was justified in entertaining revision for setting aside order especially when representative of the Board appeared in court and did not raise any question of lack of jurisdiction before Lower Appellate Court and absented himself therefrom--- High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Lower Appellate Court as no illegality, perversity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction could be pointed out in the order passed by Lower Appellate Court---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. : 2017 YLR 1485 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, LAHORE
Side Opponent : AKBAR ALI
S. 42---Suit for declaration---Limitation---Change of Date of birth ---Scope--- Rectification of school Certification--- Scope--- Contention of plaintiff was that his Date of birth was 06-12-1983 instead of 06-12-1978---Suit was decreed concurrently---Validity---Ossification test was conducted on the instructions of defendant---Result of ossification test was in favour of plaintiff which had not been rebutted by the defendant through documentary evidence---Date of birth of plaintiff was 06-12-1983---Mistake might have occurred in the admission form and same was rectifiable---Suit for which no period of limitation was provided could be filed within a period of six years when right to sue accrued---Civil Court being court of ultimate jurisdiction could look into the illegality committed by any forum---Plaintiff had taken all possible steps for rectification of school certificate---Decisions of courts below were based on reasons---No illegality or irregularity had been pointed out in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below---correct ion of Date of birth did not affect right of any person or policy of Education Board---Revision was dismissed in circumstances.
: 2017 CLCN 200 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, MULTAN
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD SHAHZAD ASLAM
S. 29---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 9---correct ion of Date of birth and father's name in matriculation certificate---Defendant/Education Board challenged jurisdiction of Civil Court---Education Board contended that Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976 barred jurisdiction of Civil Court to adjudicate the matter and further submitted that plaintiff himself filled up Date of birth and parentage in his admission form---Respondent/plaintiff contended that decree and judgment of the two courts below were justified as his Date of birth in Union Council certificate was correct , similarly correct name of his father was incorporated in CNIC of his father---Validity---Respondent/plaintiff himself appeared before the court and got his statement recorded to the effect that his actual Date of birth was 01-01-1983 which had wrongly been inserted as 01-01-1981 in the matriculation certificate whereas his father's name had also been wrongly mentioned and at the time of issuance of the CNIC such was pointed out by the NADRA authorities---Respondent/plaintiff was cross-examined but no material discrepancy was found regarding the said facts---Exhibited birth certificate issued by the Secretary Union Council corroborated the stance taken by the plaintiff/respondent---Moreover, CNIC of the father of the respondent also revealed the correct name of father---No evidence was produced by the petitioner/defendant to rebut the contents of the plaint except that the entries, age and father's name, were made in the documents of the Board by the respondent himself---Contention about ouster clause, in terms of S. 29 of the Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976 was repelled because, S. 9 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 conferred the plenary jurisdiction to the civil court which could not be taken away in a situation where the aggrieved person found himself remediless, particularly, when a dispute required detailed evidence in order to resolve a factual controversy---Respondent had no alternate forum for redressal of his grievance---High Court declined interference in the concurrent findings of the courts below---Revision petition was dismissed accordingly. : 2016 PLD 539 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : AHMAD NAWAZ KHAN BAKHTIARI
Side Opponent : APPELLATE AUTHORITY
S. 27(1)(b)---National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance (VIII of 2000), Ss. 9, 10 & 19---Election for local government---Dispute with regard to age of candiDate ---Entries of National Identity Card and birth Registration Certificate---Scope---Nomination papers were rejected by the Returning of ficer on the ground that candiDate did not qualify being under twenty-five years of age---Appellate authority accepted the nomination papers holding that candiDate was more than twenty five years according to birth Registration Certificate---Validity---National Identity Card was a public document having probative value---Presumption of truth was attached to the National Identity Card which could be considered as evidence---Entries of National Identity Card were considered to be more authentic and admitted to be correct ---Such entries should be given preference over other documents/certificates unless same were rebutted by better and strong evidence---Entries of National Identity Card should be considered for determining the age of any person---Preference should be given to the entries made in the National Identity Card over the entries made in the birth Registration Certificate---Computerized National Identity Card of the candiDate , in the present case, was duplicate or had been issued after expiry of old one---Nothing was on record that any effort was made by the candiDate for correct ion of his Date of birth if wrongly mentioned on Computerized National Identity Card before filing of his nomination papers---CandiDate had used present National Identity Card for many years without any complaint---Date of birth of candiDate was less than twenty five years at the time of filing of nomination papers and he was not eligible to contest the election---Impugned order passed by the appellate authority was set aside and that of Returning of ficer was restored---Nomination papers submitted by the candiDate were rejected---Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.: 2016 YLR 2435 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD UMAIR
S. 42---Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act (XIII of 1976), Ss. 29 & 31---Suit for declaration---Date of birth , correct ion of ---Malice---Scope---Contention of plaintiff was that his correct Date of birth was 14-11-1993 and not 07-11-1991---Suit was decreed concurrently---Validity---Malice on the part of defendants (Board of Secondary Education) had been asserted in the plaint---Plaintiff was not under any obligation to specify any person of the Education Board with an allegation of any enmity rather it was ridiculous to presume that there would be any enmity or personal grudge of the of ficials of Education Board against a student---Non-performance of duties in accordance with rules, regulations and principle of natural justice would amount to mala fide on the part of Board of ficials---Where rights of any one were infringed then civil court had ample jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter--Plaintiff had proved his case through cogent evidence---Actual Date of birth of plaintiff was 14-11-1993---Revision was dismissed in circumstances
: 2016 YLR 1625 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ASHRAF
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD ASLAM SHAD
S. 27---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199--- Constitutional petition---Nomi-nation of a candiDate ---Disqualification of candiDate for being under age---Scope---According to CNIC, Date of birth of respondent was 25-09-1986 whereas its entry in CNIC varied from the Date preserved with NADRA where his Date of birth was recorded as 25-09-1991---Copies of both CNIC's had the same number and even Date of issuance and Date of expiry was the same---Photocopy of CNIC attached with nomination papers of respondent was tampered with to change his actual Date of birth ---Respondent had placed on record same photocopy of CNIC of respondent, which had already been appended by petitioner with the petition---Photocopy of CNIC produced by petitioner had been obtained by him from online verification of NADRA ---- High Court observed that there was no force in the argument that Date of birth had wrongly been recorded in CNIC of respondent---CNIC was issued to respondent on 21-12-2013 and he remained silent for about two years and did not make any effort to get his Date of birth correct ed from NADRA---Date of birth of respondent shown in his computerized birth Certificate also did not tally with his Date of birth mentioned in the photocopy of ID card appended with nomination papers ---Respondent at the time of filing of his nomination papers was having inherent defect of disqualification, therefore, he was not qualified to hold any public of fice on such basis ---- Respondent was disqualified from being elected as General Councillor and Election Commission of Pakistan was ordered to hold re-election within a period of two months---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.
: 2011 YLR 2062 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : SALMAN ILYAS
Side Opponent : VICE-CHANCELLOR, BZU
Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Petitioner challenged cancellation of his admission to M.B.A. on account of his being overage---Validity---Petitioner had already passed his first semester before his admission was cancelled---Denial of re-admission to petitioner could put his future prospects at stake---Vacancy resulting from cancellation of petitioner's admission would cause loss of public money---No fraud or misrepresentation had been alleged against the petitioner who mentioned his correct Date of birth on the application Form---If petitioner had been found ineligible, his application should have been rejected at initial stage allowing him opportunity to apply for admission to some other course or degree---Negligence was committed by the University Staff in scrutinizing the application of petitioner---Constitutional petition was allowed with direction to the University to allow the petitioner to rejoin his studies in M.B.A. programme.
: 2007 PLD 453 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Malik MUHAMMAD FAISAL
Side Opponent : STATE LIFE INSURACNE CORPORATION through Chairman, Karachi and 2 others
---Date ----Date of birth , proof of ---National Identity Card and School/Board Record both containing different Date s of birth of same person---Validity---Date of birth mentioned in National Identity Card would ordinarily be taken to correct unless proved to the contrary by cogent and convincing evidence---Date of birth recorded in School/Board record, though different, but earliest in time than National Identity Card, would be taken to be true---Principles.
: 2002 MLD 1966 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, LAHORE
Side Opponent : Miss GHAZALA ROOHI
Specific Relief Act 1877 ----S.42.---Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act (XIII of 1976), Ss.29 & 31 Educational institution- correct ion of Date of birth of candiDate - Suit for declaration---Jurisdiction of Civil Court--Criteria to determine, jurisdiction of Civil Court---If any action had been taken in good faith though same might not have been done strictly in accordance with relevant provisions of law, jurisdiction of Civil Court would be excluded under Ss.29 & 31 of Punjab Boards of Intermediate end Secondary Education Act, 1976---Wheie -no allegation was levelled with regard to mala fides and lack of good faith on part of Board's committee, jurisdiction of Civil Court would stand ousted---If Board's Committee had acted against provisions of Statute or allegations of mala fides were made against Board regarding any act, jurisdiction of Civil Court could not be ousted despite provisions of Ss.29 & 31 of Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976---If there was no allegations of mala fides and bad faith on part of of ficials of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain suit regarding correct ion of entries of Date of birth of plaintiff candiDate
0 comments:
Post a Comment