Stereo. H C J D A 38.

Judgment Sheet

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Civil Revision No. 308-2015

(BISE Lahore etc. Versus Muhammad Waqar Saleem Khan)

JUDGMENT
Date of Hearing

08.10.2015

Petitioners by:

M/s Mahboob Azhar Sheikh, Advocate and

Ch. Irfan Haider, Advocate.
Khalid Mahmood, Superintendent,
Registration Branch, BISE, Lahore.

Respondent by

Chaudhry Khalil-ur-Rehman, Advocate.

Atir Mahmood, J. Through this civil revision, the petitioners

have challenged the judgment and decree dated 01.12.2014 passed by
the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore through which the
appeal filed by the petitioners-defendants (hereinafter referred as
petitioners) was dismissed which was filed against the judgment and
decree dated 21.06.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Lahore
whereby the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred
as respondent) was decreed.
2.

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed a suit for

declaration with consequential relief against the petitioners stating

therein that the actual date of birth of the respondent is 20.10.1993
whereas the date of birth recorded in his secondary school certificate
issued by the petitioners as 20.10.1992 is incorrect. It was alleged in
the plaint that the respondent approached to the petitioners for the
correction of his date of birth in the relevant record and for the
issuance of new certificate with correct date of birth but they refused
to do so. The petitioners contested the suit by filing their written
statement. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned
trial court framed the following issues:1.

Whether he correct date of birth of the plaintiff is

20.10.1993 instead of 20.10.1992 which is liable for
correction on Secondary School Certificate and

C.R. No.308-2015

Intermediate School Certificate and plaintiff is entitled to

decree for declaration with consequential relief as
prayed for in the plaint? OPP.
2.

Whether the suit of the plaintiff is false, frivolous and

vexatious? OPD.

Whether under Sections 29 and 31 of the Punjab Board

of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976, the
court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter?
OPD

Whether as per order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the suit is not

maintainable? OPD

Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD

6.

Whether as per principle of estoppel, the suit is not

maintainable? OPD.

7.

Relief.

After recording oral as well as documentary evidence of the parties,

learned trial court decreed the suit filed by the respondent vide
judgment and decree dated 21.06.2012. Feeling dissatisfied the
petitioners filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned
Additional District Judge, Lahore vide judgment and decree dated
01.12.2014, hence this civil revision.
4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are against the law
and facts of the case; that the judgments and decrees of the courts
below are result of misreading and non-reading of evidence; that the
learned courts below have failed to consider the fact that the
admission form was filled in by the respondent himself and no other
agency, school or tuition center was involved in filling up the
admission form; that in view of the provisions contained in sections
29 and 31 of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education,
Lahore Act, 1976, the learned trial court has absolutely no jurisdiction
to entertain and try the suit; that the learned courts below have misappreciated the evidence with regard to the birth certified issued by
the Union Council 89, Gulshan Ravi, Lahore as it was issued a few
days before institution of the suit; that the learned courts below have
not applied their judicious mind while passing the impugned
judgments and decrees.

C.R. No.308-2015

5.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has

submitted that the judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts
below are well reasoned and they have committed no illegality while
producing the impugned judgments and decrees. He prayed for
dismissal of the appeal.
6.

Arguments heard. Record perused.

7.

In order to prove the case, the respondent himself appeared in

the witness box as PW1 and produced PW2 Naseeb Khan to

corroborate his version. In his examination-in-chief, he deposed that
his date of birth is 20.10.1993. He produced Exh. P1, certificate of
birth No. 580 dated 20.01.1993 issued by the Metropolitan
Corporation, Lahore (

), Exh. P2 birth certificate issued by the

Government of the Punjab and Exh.P3 B-Form about the

registration of the children less than 18 years of age. He deposed that
his date of birth has wrongly been entered on his matriculation
certificate as 20.10.1992. He produced copy of the certificate of
metric (

) as Exh. P4. He deposed that he requested the

board/petitioners for correction of his date of birth but he was asked to

obtain the decree from the civil court for correction of the date of
birth. In cross-examination, he admitted that Exh.D1 is his admission
form where-upon his date of birth has been written as 20.10.1992. He
also admitted that on the certificate of metric, his date of birth has
been recorded according to Exh. D1. He volunteered that the form
was filled by the school authorities. He also admitted that at the time
of his registration, his date of birth has been written as 20.10.1992. He
showed his ignorance that why the board refused to correct his date of
birth. He however, admitted that birth certificate and B-Form were
issued in the year 2010. He denied the suggestion that birth certificate,
B-Form and birth receipt (

) were prepared to get the

correction of date of birth. He also denied that his actual date of birth
is 20.10.1992 which is written on the birth certificate. He admitted
that against the decision of the board of refusing the correction of his
date of birth, he did not file any application before the appellate forum
of the board. PW2 Naseeb Khan during the cross-examination,

C.R. No.308-2015

corroborated the contents of the plaint as well as statement made by

the respondent. He added that the form which was forwarded by the
school to the board was filled by the school authorities themselves. He
stated that the respondent is his grandson whose date of birth is
20.10.1993. During cross-examination, he stated that his grandson
appeared in the matriculation examination for the year 2007. He
admitted that admission form was not written in his presence. He also
stated that he has 14 grandsons/grand-daughters. He admitted that he
did not remember the date of births of his grandsons/grand-daughters.
He however, stated that he did not appear before the committee for
correction of date of birth. He volunteered that he was subsequently
called by the committee through a letter. He admitted that no letter
was issued by the committee in his name.
8.

In rebuttal, DW1 Rizwan Bashir, Junior Clerk of Matriculation

Branch Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore

deposed that the date of birth of the respondent/plaintiff is 20.10.1992
which was written on the admission form (Exh.D1), according to
which result card and matriculation certificate (

) was issued. In

cross-examination, he admitted that the respondent/plaintiff was a

regular student and the forms of regular students are received through
the school. He stated that he could not tell, as to whether, the date of
birth of the plaintiff on Form-B is correct. DW2 Muhammad
Anwaar-ul-Haq Assistant, Regulation Section, Board of Intermediate
and Secondary Education, Lahore deposed that the application of the
plaintiff for correction of his date of birth was processed by the
committee which was rejected after going through the contents of the
application and record for the reason that in case of its correction, the
age of the plaintiff was going to become less than 14 years. He
produced copy of the application and decision of the committee as
Exh. D2 and D3 respectively. In cross examination, he admitted that
when the respondent appeared in the matriculation examination at that
time, there was no restriction for the candidates of less than 14 years
of age to sit in the examination. He showed his ignorance that as to
whether, the plaintiff produced Form-B before the committee or

C.R. No.308-2015

not. He showed his ignorance, as to whether, the admission forms for

the metric examination are filled by the school authorities or by the
students.
9.

Admittedly, while filing the suit, the respondent nowhere

asserted that the admission forms for the matriculation examination

were not filled by himself and were filled by the school authorities.
His only assertion is that his date of birth recorded in the matriculation
certificate (

) issued by the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 as 20.0.1992

is incorrect and correct date is 20.10.1993, whereas the respondent

specifically asserted in the written statement that date of birth was
written by himself as 20.10.1992 in his admission form for secondary
school examination for the year 2007. The stance that the admission
form was filled by the school authority was taken for the first time at
the time of recording the evidence. The application for correction of
date of birth (ExhD2) is also silent, as to why, the correction of date of
birth was required. It is noted that there is a specific column No.9, in
the application form, which is meant for incorporation of the reasons
for the correction in the date of birth. No such reason is reflected in
the said column No.9. It is now a settled proposition of law that a
party cannot go beyond its pleadings. Further, no effort was made by
the respondent to prove Exh.P1 (

) by production of original

record of Metropolitan Corporation, Lahore for its comparison and as

such no reliance can be placed upon it. As far as Exh P2 and P3 are
concerned, both these documents were issued on 09.07.2010 and
11.06.2010 respectively, much after issuance of matriculation
certificate. Even otherwise Exh. P2 and P3 have been issued on the
information furnished by the parents of the respondent/plaintiff and
none of them appeared before the learned trial court as they could be
subjected to any cross-examination. There is also no effort on behalf
of the respondent to summon the record or any witness from the
school attended by the respondent in order to substantiate his stand
that the admission forms were filled by the school authorities. The
respondent as PW1 did not utter even a single word in his
examination-in-chief that his admission form was filled by the school

C.R. No.308-2015

authorities. Though during cross examination, he volunteered that

school authorities obtained their photographs and filled the forms but
at the same time he admitted that no such question was made by the
learned counsel, as to whether, this form filled by himself.
10.

In view of the above discussion, I have no doubt in my mind

that the respondent failed to prove through any cogent evidence that
his actual date of birth was 20.10.1993 rather than 20.10.1992. There
is yet another aspect of the case that under sections 29 and 31 of the
Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976, there is a
specific bar upon the jurisdiction of the court and in this regard
specific issue No.3 was framed and since than was a legal issue that it
was incumbent upon the learned trial court to decide the same in
accordance with the provisions of law but in a very slipshod manner
the learned trial court decided this issue against the petitioners by
stating that no reliable and cogent evidence was produced on behalf of
the defendants. I am constrained to hold that to decide issue No.3, the
court was under a legal obligation to examine the pleadings and
evidence on record. According to the plaint or evidence led by the
respondent, no malice, ill-will or any bias has been alleged against the
petitioners or any staff member of the Board, therefore, the provisions
of sections 29 and 31 of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary
Education Act, 1976 are attracted in this case which are reproduced as
under for ready reference:29 Bar of suit.No act done, order made or proceeding
taken by a Board in pursuance of the provisions of this Act
shall be called in question in any court.
31. Protection of acts and order under the Act.--- No suit
for damages or other legal proceedings shall be instituted
against Government, the Controlling Authority, a Board, a
committee, a member or a committee or an officer or employee
of a Board in respect of anything done or purported to have
been done in good faith in pursuance of the provisions of this
Act and the regulations and rules made thereunder. (Emphasis
provided)

C.R. No.308-2015

In view of the above provision of law, the learned trial court had no
jurisdiction to decree the suit and findings of the courts below on this
issue are not sustainable and liable to be reversed.
11.

For what has been discussed above, this revision petition is

allowed and the judgments and decrees of the courts below are setaside being contrary to the law and facts of the case and the
suit of the respondent is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their
own costs.
(ATIR MAHMOOD)
Judge
Approved for reporting

Judge

Wasif*