law citation on correction in date of brith in CNIC with logical arguments.

Latest and Great law citation on correction in date of brith in CNIC with logical arguments.
(Mujjan Ali Panhwar)

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---

----S. 42---Suit for declaration---Correction of date of birth in CNIC by NADRA---Scope---Contention of plaintiff was that he was born on 22nd May, 1993 but his date of birth had been recorded as 22nd May, 1990---Suit was dismissed concurrently---Validity---Plaintiff produced documents bearing his date of birth as 22-05-1993 which could not be refuted by the authorities---No reason existed to believe that the date of birth mentioned in the documents produced by the plaintiff, was managed one---Plaintiff was neither claiming any right in service nor having any other interest in seeking correction of date of birth in his CNIC---Correction of date of birth of the plaintiff would not adversely affect any right of any other person---No provision existed to prohibit NADRA from rectifying any mistake in the CNIC---Every citizen was required to be registered with the NADRA---Issuance of CNIC would mean that information contained therein was valid and correct, therefore, by not correcting an error on the CNIC, NADRA in fact was not performing its primary function---NADRA was bound to maintain a correct database and to print the correct information on the CNIC---Impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below were set aside and NADRA was directed to rectify the mistake as to date of birth of plaintiff appearing on his CNIC from 22-05-1990 to 22-05-1993---Revision was accepted, in circumstances.

Mrs.Farida Hanif v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior Affairs, Islamabad and another 2011 CLC 511; Regional Commissioner of Income Tax Karachi and 2 others v. Shafi Muhammad Baluch 1997 MLD 2801 and Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Islamabad through Chairman/Secretary v. Junaid Rehmat 2009 YLR 1296 ref.

Muhammad Salah-ud-Din v. NADRA PLD 2012 Lah. 378 rel.

(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below could not be treated as sacrosanct and could be interfered with by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction when such findings were based on insufficient evidence, mis-reading of evidence, non-consideration of material evidence, erroneous assumption of fact, patent error of law, consideration of inadmissible evidence, excess or abuse of jurisdiction, arbitrary exercise of power and where unreasonable view on evidence had been taken.

Major Rashid Baig v. Rehmat Ullah Khan and 4 others PLD 2001 SC 443; Muhammad Bakhsh v. Ellahi Bukhsh and others 2003 SCMR 286 and Abdul Sattar v. Mst. Anar Bibi and others PLD 2007 SC 609 rel.

2016 Y L R 323 [Sindh]
Before Zafar Ahmed Rajput, J
(IMRAN KHAN Versus
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Interior and 3 others---Respondents)