BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION vs MUHAMMAD
This civil revision petition arose from a suit for declaration filed by the respondent, Muhammad Zaheer Ahmad, seeking to correct his date of birth in the records of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, finding his correct date of birth to be 28-1-1960, a decision subsequently affirmed by the Additional District Judge in appeal. The petitioner Board challenged these concurrent findings, primarily questioning the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain such a suit, arguing that the matter fell exclusively within the Board's domain. The High Court rejected the petitioner's arguments, noting the absence of any statutory bar ousting the jurisdiction of the civil court. Relying on established precedent, the Court held that under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the civil court retains jurisdiction to adjudicate such disputes. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the respondent's date of birth and the maintainability of the civil suit.
- Does a civil court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the correction of a date of birth in educational records?
- Is there a statutory bar preventing civil courts from adjudicating disputes regarding the correction of dates of birth in educational board records?
- Does the Limitation Act 1908 apply to suits seeking the correction of a date of birth in educational records?
- Section 9, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Article 120, Limitation Act 1908
' The respondent Muhammad Zaheer Ahmad brought a suit for declaration to the effect that his date of birth is 28-1-1960. Therein he also claimed a decree to be passed by way of consequential relief to the effect that the petitioning Board accordingly enters his correct date of birth in the record relating to his Secondary School Examination. The suit was contested by the defendant on a number of technical pleas and also on merits with the averment that the plaintiff had himself mentioned his date of birth as 6-6-1957 which is his correct date of birth therefore his application praying for such a correction of his date of birth was rightly rejected by the petitioning Board. Pleas of the parties led to the framing of five issues wherein questions relating to jurisdiction of Civil Court and the maintainability of the suit were set down under issues Nos.1 and 4 respectively. On the basis of evidence led by the parties, trial Court decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of conclusion reached that his correct date of birth is 28-1-1960 and not 6-6-1957 inasmuch as his parents got married in that year.
2. In appeal there against filed by the Board, a learned Additional District Judge reconsidered the evidence and affirmed the findings of the trial Court to uphold its decree in result of dismissal of appeal by his judgment dated 11-7-1985.
3. This revision petition, against concurrent findings of fact reached by the two Courts below on the basis of record, was admitted to regular hearing for consideration of the question as to jurisdiction which, it was alleged, exclusively vested in the Board.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the cases of Zafar-ul-Ahsan PLD 1960 SC 112 and Muhammad Rafiq (1983 SCMR 1024). But they have no bearing on the case in hand inasmuch as they proceed upon their own facts. They do not have any relevance regarding the controversy involved in this case whereabouts there is no statutory bar of jurisdiction available and by virtue of section 9 of the C.P.C. It remains triable by the Civil Court. On the side of the respondent, reliance is placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Muhammad Aslam Bora reported as PLD 1988 Lah. 658 wherein such a suit has been held liable to be governed by the provisions of Article 120 of the Limitation Act. This judgment has since been affirmed by the Supreme Court by its unreported judgment dated 17-8-1988 causing consolidated dismissal of C.P. Nos. 708 and 756 to 758 of 1988. Petitioner's contention is, therefore, not sustainable and is accordingly repelled.
5. There is no other point raised for consideration.
6. In result of the foregoing, there is no force found in the revision petition which is, hence dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Cited by 4 cases
- JAMSHED vs SALEEMUDDIN and 4 others 2014 PLD Sindh 120
- HASNAIN FARAZ vs CHAIRMAN through B.I.S.E. and others 2011 CLC 265
- MUHAMMAD HAMDAN SHAIKH vs THE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF SECONDARY 1998 PLD Karachi 59
- MUHAMMAD HAMDAN SHAIKH vs CHAIRMAN BOARD OF SECONDARY K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 523