Change of Birth Date Particulars in the Record of Board

Change of Birth Date Particulars in the Record of Board Case Laws Civil Law Civil Revision Knowledge - Civil Law Lahore High Court Litigation & Arbitration Mala fides Solutions - Civil Law Mr. Justice Atir Mahmood in his judgment has decided the issue regarding change of birth date particulars in the record of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, in Civil Revision No. 3691 of 2011.

1. This civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Lahore who dismissed appeal of the petitioners and upheld the judgment and decree dated 07.02.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge Ist Class, Lahore whereby suit of the respondent-plaintiff was decreed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent (The plaintiff) instituted a suit for declaration with consequential relief against the petitioners (The defendants) stating that the correct date of birth of the respondent is 14.11.1993 but due to inadvertence, the same was mentioned in the official record of the Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education as 07.11.1991, same is wrong and incorrect. Further stated that the plaintiff approached the concerned authority for correction of his date of birth but the petitioners flatly refused to do so; before filing the suit, the respondent moved an application before the Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, Lahore (The Board) for correction of his date of birth but the same was rejected by the petitioners. The petitioners moved an application under Order VII rule 11 C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint which was contested by the respondent and the application was rejected by learned trial court vide order dated 23.11.2010. Thereafter, the petitioners-defendants contested the suit by filing written statement. Issues were framed and evidence was recorded. The learned trial court after hearing the arguments of both side, decreed the suit of the respondent-plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 07.02.2011. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment and decree the petitioners filed an appeal before the learned appellate court which was dismissed by the learned appellate court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 23.08.2011. Hence this civil revision.

3. The emphasis of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the civil court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter on the ground that there is a bar to initiate any proceedings against the petitioners against the acts done in good faith, as provided under sections 29 & 31 of the Punjab Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976 (The Act). Secondly, the suit is barred by law as the order dated 14.11.1993 passed by the board has not been assailed while filing the suit. Learned counsel argued that during the proceedings before the Board, the respondent produced a bogus register of the municipal authorities regarding his date of birth, therefore, he is not entitled for any relief from the court.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent controverted the arguments of the petitioners.

5. Arguments heard. Record perused.

6. In order to evaluate the arguments of the petitioners that no mala-fide has been alleged against the petitioners, therefore suit is not entertainable under sections 29 & 31 of the Act, the paragraph No. 3 of the plaint is very relevant. This paragraph has been denied evasively by the petitioners in the following manners:

‘3. Denied. In reply to this para it is submitted that plaintiff has submitted the application for correction of his date of birth from 07.1.1991 to 14.11.1993 before the answering defendants. The date of birth committee after hearing the plaintiff and perusing the record has recommended to reject the application of the plaintiff and the same was rejected by the competent authority.’

Keeping the above referred paragraph in juxta position, there remains no doubt that malice on the part of the petitioners has been asserted.

7. In my opinion, the respondent was not under any obligation to specify any person of the Board with an allegation of any enmity rather it is ridiculous to presume that there would be any enmity or personal grudge of the officials of the Board against a student, who may be a minor at the relevant time. In words “ Malafide and “Bad faith” have been defined in the ninth edition of Black’s Law Dictionary as under:

Bad faith, n. (17c) 1. Dishonesty of belief or purpose – the lawyer filed the pleading in bad faith – Also termed mala fides (Mal-e-fi-deez).

“ A complete catalogue of types of bad faith is impossible, but the following types are among those which have been recognized in judicial decisions: evasion of the spirit of the bargain, lack of diligence and slacking off, willful rendering of imperfect performance, abuse of a power to specify terms, and interference with or failure to cooperate in the other party’s performance. “ Restatement (Second) of Contracts 205 cmt.d (1979).”

It is held that when an order is passed and an act is done without due diligence and application of judicious mind then it clearly comes within the definition of “bad faith” and “malafide”. The non performance of their duties in accordance with rules regulations and principle of natural justice amounts to mala-fide on the part of the board officials. Bare reading of orders passed by the Board on application of the respondent (Exh.D3) reveals that a register of birth certificate was produced before the committee of the Board on 11.5.2010 when it was directed that the register earlier to the same as well as after the ‘produced register’ be requisitioned on 18.5.2010. A register starting from 29.2.1991 was produced and the board held that earlier register was a bogus one.

Further information regarding change of birth date particulars in the record of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education 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.