13/04/2026
2025 Y L R 40
Date of birth---Correction---School record---Petitioner / plaintiff sought correction of her date of birth as per her school record---Trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Court dismissed suit and appeal filed by petitioner / plaintiff ---Validity---Entry in school Dakhil-Kharij (Admission-Leaving) Register was prepared by school when age of petitioner / plaintiff was ten years and she could not manage such document---Respondent / defendant did not dispute documents produced by petitioner / plaintiff which had come into the ambit of admission---Petitioner / plaintiff proved her date of birth as per her school record---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside concurrent findings of two Courts below and decreed the suit in favour of petitioner / plaintiff---High Court directed respondents / defendants to correct date of birth of petitioner / plaintiff as per her school record---
Judgmen
---Through the instant petition, the petitioner/plaintiff has challenged the validity of the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2023 ("the impugned judgment and decree") passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Loralai ("the trial Court") and judgment and decree dated 24.04.2024 ("the impugned judgment and decree") passed by the Additional District Judge, Loralai ("the lower appellate Court"), whereby, suit of the petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court as well as appeal was also dismissed by the lower appellate Court.
2. Brief facts leading to file the instant civil revision petition are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a Civil Suit No.32 of 2023 for declaration and correction of date of birth of petitioner/plaintiff as 05.03.1997 instead of 05.03.1987 in her CNIC, certificate of SSC, HSSC and DMC before the trial Court with the averments that the petitioners/plaintiff was a student and got her early education from Government Girls High School, Kohlu and her actual date of birth has been entered in her school record i.e. Register Dakhil Kharij as 05.03.1997 at Serial No.504, the real date of birth of the petitioner/plaintiff is also evident from her school leaving certificate as 05.03.1997, but the respondent/defendant No.1 in computerized National Identity Card (CNIC) entered the incorrect date of birth as 05.03.1987 and similarly, the respondent/defendant No.2 has also been wrongly entered her date of birth as 05.03.1987 in the Secondary School Certificate ("SSC") of the petitioner/ plaintiff. The petitioner/plaintiff further averred that she approached the respondent/defendant No.1 for correction of her date of birth as 05.03.1997 as per her school record and school leaving certificate, but the petitioner/plaintiff was directed to first correct her certificate of SSC, hence, she approached the office of respondent/defendant No.2 through an application for correction of her SSC certificate and also filed form No.3 through her Head Mistress of Government Girls High School, Kohlu, including its verification certificate for correction of date of birth of the petitioner/plaintiff in her SSC certificate, but the respondent/defendant No.2 postponed the matter on one or the other pretext, thus, she filed the instant suit with the following prayer clause:-
"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant may kindly be passed with following effects:
A. Declare that the correct date of birth of plaintiff is 05-03-1997 in view of her school record and school leaving certificate.
B. Declare that the defendants have wrongly endorsed her date of birth in her CNIC and Certificates of S.S.C, HSSC and D.M.C as 05-03-1987 instead of correct date of birth as 05-03-1997.
C. Directions be made to the defendants to correct the date of birth of plaintiff in its record and also issue revised CNIC, S.S.C, H.S.S.C and DMC in favor of plaintiff with the correct date of birth as 05-03-1997.
E. Any other relief, which may deem fit and proper according to the circumstances of the case may also be awarded to the plaintiff in the interest of justice, fair play and equity."
3. After registration of the suit, the trial Court issued notices to the respondents/defendants. The respondents/ defendants filed their separate written statements, controverted the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff on legal as well as on factual grounds.
4. The trial Court out of divergent pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:-
"1. Whether no cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff against the defendants?
2. Whether the suit of plaintiff is barred by time under Article 120 of Limitation Act, 1908?
3. Whether correct date of birth of plaintiff is 05-03-1997 instead of 05-03-1987 in her CNIC, SSC, HSC AND Detailed Mark Certificate?
4. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to the relief claimed for?
5. Relief?"
5. After framing issues, the trial Court directed the parties to produce evidence in support of their respective claim. The petitioner/plaintiff produced PW-1, Muhammad Tahir and lastly, appeared in the witness box and recorded her statement on oath, while producing certain documents, which were exhibited as Ex.P/1-A to Ex.P/1-H. In rebuttal, the representative of respondent/defendant No.1, namely, Shah Faisal, Deputy Superintendent, appeared and recorded his statement on oath, while, the representative of respondent/defendant No.2, namely, Surat Khan also appeared and recorded his statement on oath. After hearing arguments from both sides, the trial Court dismissed the suit of petitioner/plaintiff vide impugned judgment and decree dated 15.12.2023.
6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied from the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court, the petitioner/plaintiff filed an appeal under Section 96 of the C.P.C. before the lower appellate Court, and the same was registered as Civil Appeal No.02/2024. The lower appellate Court issued notices to procure the attendance of respondents/defendants. The respondents/defendants appeared through their counsel/representative(s) and contested the appeal. After hearing the arguments of the parties, the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal by upholding the judgment and decree of the trial Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 24.04.2024, hence, this petition.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner/ plaintiff inter alia contended that the petitioner/plaintiff was knocked out on the sole ground of limitation; that both the Courts below have wrongly been held that the cause of action accrued to the petitioner/plaintiff from the date of issuance of SSC certificate; that the petitioner/plaintiff approached the office of the respondent/defendant No.2 for correction of her date of birth, but the same was refused, thus, the limitation starts from the date of the refusal of office of the respondent/defendant No.2; that the petitioner/plaintiff produced documentary evidence, which were brushed aside without any cogent reason by the fora below.
8. On the other hand, learned counsels/representative for the respondent/defendants Nos.1 and 2 argued that the suit of petitioner/plaintiff is hopelessly barred by time and this issue was well appreciated by both the Courts below; that the petitioner/plaintiff failed to prove her case through reliable evidence.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record minutely with their able assistance. It is the case of the petitioner/plaintiff that the suit of petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court and the lower appellate Court by holding that the same is time-barred as the SSC certificate was issued to the petitioner/plaintiff on 24.07.2012, while in order to correct the date of birth mentioned in the SSC certificate, she filed suit in the year 2023, which is beyond the six (06) years limitation period, prescribed under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908 ("the Act of 1908"). In the suit, the petitioner/plaintiff has claimed that the cause of action accrued when the petitioner/plaintiff came to know about an inadvertent mistake that led to the recording of the wrong date of birth on the SSC certificate and consequently when the petitioner/plaintiff approached the respondent/defendant No.2 for correction of date of birth, which request was denied by the respondent/defendant No.2. The record transpires that respondents/ defendants in their written statements did not deny that the petitioner/plaintiff had approached the respondent/defendant No.1, but merely asserted that the date of birth recorded on the SSC certificate was in accordance with the examination form filled out by the petitioner/plaintiff. For the purpose of limitation, the trial Court concluded that limitation began to run from the date of issuance of the SSC certificate. It is the petitioner's/plaintiff's case that the incorrect date of birth recorded on the SSC is a continuing cause of action and also that cause of action accrued when the incorrect date of birth on the SSC came to her notice in the process of having her educational transcripts verified and she reached out to the respondents/defendants to seek its correction, which was refused by the respondents/defendants thereby denied her the right to have her correct date of birth reflected on her SSC. In this regard, the petitioner/plaintiff produced Form No.3 (Ex.P/1-C), the same was not denied/ rebutted by the respondents/ defendants. Article 120 of the Act of 1908 states that "when the right to sue would have accrued" it is evident that time begins to run for purposes of Article 120 of the Act of 1908 from the date when the cause of action accrues. In the instant case, the cause of action could have accrued from the date of the issuance of the SSC, if the incorrect date of birth recorded on the SSC had come to the notice of the petitioner/plaintiff at that time. Or the cause of action could have accrued from the date on which the respondents/ defendants refused to correct the incorrect date of birth mentioned on the SSC and bring in accord with the date of birth as mentioned on her birth form. I am fortified by the view of the Division Bench of the learned Lahore High Court in the case titled "University of the Punjab, Lahore through Registrar v. Muhammad Aslam Bora, Advocate and another" (PLD 1988 Lahore 658) that:-
"The period of limitation for filing the suits in hand is admittedly regulated by Article 120 of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1908, which prescribes six years' period commencing from the time when the right to sue accrues. The right to sue would have accrued to the respondents and they were to have recourse to the Court of law when they had acquired knowledge of their true dates of birth or when they had felt aggrieved with the wrong entries touching dates of birth. The respondents' suits, in view of the circumstances of the cases, were well within time and could not be said to be time-barred. "
12. The learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court in Secretary Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Islamabad v. Suriya Bano (2019 YLR 2354) held the following:
"Admittedly the period of limitation for filing of the suit for declaration is regulated by Article 120 of Limitation Act, 1908, which prescribes six years period commencing from the time when the right to sue accrues. In the instant case when the plaintiff acquired knowledge of wrong entry of her date of birth in her matriculation certificate, she has filed the suit in the trial Court as evident/mentioned in Para 4 of the plaint. The respondent/ plaintiff's suit in view of circumstances of the instant case was well within time and could not be said to be time barred. My view is fortified by case law reported in (PLD 1988 Lahore 658)."
10. Another contention raised by the petitioner/plaintiff is that the examination form of the petitioner/plaintiff was filled in by the petitioner/plaintiff herself, as such, the date of birth cannot be substituted at such belated stage. While, when the query was put to the learned counsel for respondents/defendants Nos.1 and 2, both categorically admitted that the examination form is filled in by the school and not by the candidate, therefore, I see no force in the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents/ defendants Nos.1 and 2. The petitioner/ plaintiff exhibited verified certificates issued by the school that as per record at the time of admission, the actual date of birth has been mentioned in the register as 05.03.1997, further produced Register Dakhil-Kharij , pertains to the year 2001, where on Serial No.504, the date of birth of petitioner/plaintiff was also mentioned as 05.03.1997 (Ex.P/1-B). The scrutiny of Ex.P/1-B reflects that the same was prepared by the school, when the age of petitioner/plaintiff was under ten (10) years and she cannot manage such document(s). On the contrary, learned counsel for respondents/ defendants Nos.1 and 2 did not dispute the documents produced by the petitioner/ plaintiff. It is a settled principle of law that if a party does not dispute the document(s) produced by the other party, the same will come into the ambit of admission. The petitioner/plaintiff provided her case that her date of birth is 05.03.1997 instead of 05.03.1987.
Thus, keeping in view the above discussion, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff succeeded in making out a case in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff. Resultantly, the instant petition is allowed, the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2023, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Loralai and judgment and decree dated 24.04.2024, passed by the Additional District Judge, Loralai are set aside and the suit of petitioner/plaintiff is decreed in her favour. The respondents/defendants are directed to correct the date of birth of the petitioner/plaintiff as 05.03.1997 instead of 05.03.1987.
