Pakistan Case Law
2000 SCMR 1415

BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, LAHORE and anothers vs HASSAN SULEMAN

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2000 SCMR 1415
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition For Leave to Appeal No. 1616-L of 1997
Date1098-02-04
Judge(s)Irshad Hasan Khan, Muhammad Arif, Raja Afrasiab Khan
Authored byCh. Muhammad Arif
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This civil petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner Board's civil revision and maintaining the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts in favor of the respondent. The core legal question concerned the ouster of civil court jurisdiction under sections 29 and 31 of the Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act 1976 regarding acts and orders of the Board. The Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction of civil courts of plenary jurisdiction is not ousted and is duly attracted for the grant of a declaration under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877, particularly where findings of fact regarding an incorrectly recorded date of birth were arrived at after recording evidence. The Court laid down the principle that statutory bars on court proceedings do not exclude the plenary jurisdiction of civil courts to grant declaratory relief in appropriate matters such as the correction of a date of birth.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether the jurisdiction of civil courts is barred to call in question acts done or orders made by a Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education under the Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act 1976?
  • Does section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 attract the jurisdiction of civil courts of plenary jurisdiction to grant a declaration in matters concerning recorded dates of birth?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact regarding the incorrect recording of a date of birth by lower courts be interfered with when based on recorded evidence?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 96, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
  • Section 29, Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act 1976
  • Section 31, Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act 1976
  • Section 42, Specific Relief Act 1877
civil court jurisdictiondeclarationdate of birtheducational boardouster of jurisdictioncivil revision

' CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 14-10-1997 dismissing Civil Revision No.1639-D of 1997 of the present petitioner Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, hereinafter referred to as the Board, with the result that the earlier judgment and decree of the trial Court, which was upheld by the first Appellate Court under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was maintained.

2. The only plea raised by the learned counsel appearing in support of this petition is that in terms of sections 29 and 31 of the Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act (XIII of 1976) no act done, order made or proceedings taken by a Board in pursuance of the provisions of the Act could be called in question in any Court. Reliance in this behalf is placed on Muhammad Rafiq v. The Board of Intermediate and Secondary. Education and others (1983 SCM R 1024).

3. We are afraid, the precedent case is of no avail to the petitioner-Board in that the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts of plenary jurisdiction is admittedly attracted to the grant of a declaration in terms of section 42 of the Specific Relief Act (I of 1877). The precedent relates to an unfair means case against the petitioner and the observation read in conjunction with the facts of the said case takes it out of the preview of the argument being advanced by the learned counsel in support of this petition.

4. Moreover, the resolution of Issues Nos.2 and 3 came about after recording evidence and it was respectively held thereunder by all the Courts below that the date of birth of the respondent/ plaintiff was incorrectly recorded being against even the physic-chemistry of birth in the two brothers born on different dates, could not be lumped together for the purpose of determination of their dates of birth.

5. No other point was argued.

6. The petition is sans merit and is liable to be dismissed. So be it.

Cited by 5 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.