Change of Birth Date in Matriculation Certificate

Change of Birth Date in Matriculation Certificate Case Laws Civil Law Civil Revision Date of Birth Knowledge - Civil Law Lahore High Court Litigation & Arbitration Solutions - Civil Law Mr. Justice Atir Mahmood in his judgment has decided the issue regarding change of birth date in matriculation certificate in Civil Revision No. 308 of 2015.

1. 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 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.

3. 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
4. Whether as per order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the suit is not maintainable? OPD

5. 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 mis-appreciated 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.

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. 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, 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.

Further information regarding change of birth date in matriculation certificate can be solicited from AUJ LAWYERS. Feel free to contact us in case you need any clarification and/or require legal assistance regarding similar matters.