IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH

CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Civil Revision S-49 of 2018

Zafarullah Dahani

Versus

Federation of Pakistan

and Others

For the Applicant: Mr. Ali Bux Baloch, Advocate.

Date of Hearing: 04.09.2018

Date of Announcement: 04.09.2018

O R D E R

Agha Faisal, J. Through this revision application, the applicant has challenged the judgment dated 31.5.2018 delivered by the learned 2^nd Additional District Judge, Larkana in Civil Appeal No. 101 of 2017 (“Impugned Judgment”).

2. Mr. Ali Bux Baloch, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Impugned Judgment is patently illegal, null and void and caused a miscarriage of justice. It was submitted that the applicant had filed a suit for correction of his date of birth before the learned trial Court in which, after recording of evidence and conducting of final arguments, was dismissed. The applicant then challenged such dismissal before the appellate Court, and after hearing the parties, the appeal was dismissed vide the Impugned Judgment. Per learned counsel, the Impugned Judgment has not appreciated the correct facts and has concluded against the applicant otherwise than in accordance with law.

3. This Court has heard the arguments of the learned counsel and reviewed the record available in the file. It is borne out from the record that the suit for correction of birth date was filed by the applicant before the learned trial Court and the said suit was dismissed after framing of issues leading evidence and conducting final arguments on 17.10.2017. The Impugned Judgment made express reference to the controversy before the trial Court and maintained the judgment of the trial Court. It may be pertinent to reproduce the operative part of the trial court judgment herein below:

“Having gone through the submissions of the parties and perusal of the record. It appears that Appellant/Plaintiff has filed this suit for correction of date of his birth from 01-01-1989 to 01-01-1997 by producing the documents in his support Primary School Leaving Certificate and Matriculation Certificate, issued by BISE Larkana. Respondents did not collect his particulars when he approached them for issuance of CNIC therefore, the particulars of date of birth of appellant were recorded incorrectly. It is pertinent to mention here that the primary school certificate issued by Headmaster of Government Primary School Noorani Masjid, Larkana and on this account learned trial Court directed the Headmaster GPS Noorani Masjid Larkana to verify the said certificate. Head master of the above said school appeared along with report dated 17-10-2017 which reflects that primary school certificate in question is not issued by him and same is bogus and manipulated. Besides it, appellant was firstly issued his CNIC in the year 2011 and got recorded his date of birth 01-01-1989 and it accept this contention of appellant then his age at the time of acquiring his first CNIC would be only 14 years which itself is not acceptable by a prudent mind.

It is settled principle of law that the plaintiff has to succeed in his case on the strength of his own title/grounds by adducing sufficient evidence in that regard and he cannot succeed over the weaknesses of other party. In the first case trial court itself verified the primary school certificate produced by the Appellant in his evidence, which turned out to be a fake and bogus document. Anyone who approaches the court for grant of any relief, must approach with clean hands. In these circumstances, contention of the appellant cannot be accepted for correction of his date of birth in his CNIC at a belated stage of 07 years. Hence, the decision of trial Courts below cannot be said to be suffering from any error or irregularity, as such, this Court finds that no question of fact or law arises for adjudication of this appeal and therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed with no order as to costs.”

4. It is apparent from the record that the trial Court concluded the suit pending there-before after recording of evidence and the said judgment was challenged before the appellate forum which is the final forum for determination of factual controversies. There are concurrent findings of the courts below and the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court could only be merited if it would be demonstrated that the provisions of Section 115,C.P.C are attracted thereto. Section 115, C.P.C reads as follows:-

“115. Revision.-- (1) The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears—

(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or

(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or

the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit.

Provided that, where a person makes an application under this sub-section, he shall, in support of such application, furnish copies of the pleadings, documents and order of the subordinate Court, and the High Court shall, except for reasons to be recoded, dispose of such application without calling of the record of the subordinate Court.

Provided that such application shall be made within ninety days of the decision of the Subordinate Court which shall provide a copy of such decision within three days thereof, and the High Court shall dispose of such application within three months.

(2) The District Court may exercise the powers conferred on the High Court by sub-section (1) in respect of any case decided by a Court subordinate to such District Court in which no appeal lies and the amount or value of the subject-matter whereof does not exceed the limits of the appellate jurisdiction of the District Court.

(3) If any application under sub-section (1) in respect of a case within the competence of the District Court has been made either to the High Court or the District Court, no further such application shall be made to either of them.

(4) No proceedings in revision shall be entertained by the High Court against an order made under sub-section (2) by the District Court.”

5. It is well settled law that the concurrent finds coupled with a preponderance claim supported by evidence may not be interfered with by a Court of revisional jurisdiction even if another outcome was possible under similar circumstances. It is also trite law that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction does not ordinarily enter into reappraisal of evidence. Reliance in this regard be placed on the following cases:

(i) 1997 SCMR 1139

(ii) 2000 SCMR 431

(iii) 2004 SCMR 877

(iv) 2002 CLC 1295

6. It is apparent that the factual issues have been identified, deliberated upon and decided by the learned trial Court on the basis of evidence and that such determination has been upheld by the learned appellate Court. The learned counsel has been unable to identify any infirmity with the Impugned Judgment precipitating the exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

7. In view of the foregoing it is the considered opinion of this Court that no case has been made out to merit interference under section 115, C.P.C., hence, the revision application, along with listed application, is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.

Judge

Abid H. Qazi/**