CORRECTION IN DATE OF BIRTH

CORRECTION IN DATE OF BIRTH

جيڪڏهن ڪنهن جي شناختي ڪارڊ ۾ ڄم جي تاريخ يا نالي م ڪا غلطي ٿي وڃي سينئر سول ڪورٽ ڪيس داخل ڪري صحيح ڪرائي سگهجي ٿو جنهن جو ٽائيم ڪارڊ جاري ٿيڻ کانپو۽ ڇھ سال آهي۔

agr kisi k NIC (sanakhti card) me koi galti he age me ya name to wo 6 year andar yani card hone se suit dakhil karake sahi karaskta he oske bad agr suit huwa to wo dismissed hojaega.

S. 42---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.120---Suit for declaration---Limitation---Period prescribed for filing of declaratory suit was six (6) years. 2015 MLD 1481                                                                      

Correction of date of Birth of plaintiff would not adversely affect any right of any other person - No provision existed to prohibit NADRA from rectifying any mistake in CNIC.

2016 YLR 323 Sindh

 scmr 2015 page 456 hisab se ap ka ye case service terbunal me file hoga.

2012 YLR 161 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD MALIK AFZAL
Side Opponent : MOHD NOOR
date of birth ---national identity card , entries of ---Evidentiary value---Such entries would carry presumption of truth. 

: 2011 SCMR 21 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD SHARIF
Side Opponent : CHIEF SECRETARY
R.12-A---Retirement age---Determination---Grievance of civil servant was that his date of retirement had wrongly been calculated from seniority list---Civil servant relied upon his date of birth mentioned in his Secondary School Certificate, Computerized national identity card and Service Book---Validity---date of birth of civil servant mentioned in Service Book could not be ignored as it was the most authenticated document---date of birth mentioned in seniority lists could not be ,referred over date of birth mentioned in Service Book--Supreme Court accepted the date of birth of civil servant mentioned in Secondary School Certificate, Computerized national identity card and Service Book---Supreme Court converted petition for leave to appeal into appeal and set aside notification of retirement of civil servant---Appeal was allowed.

FOR Date Of Birth CORRECTION
2016 YLR 323
2011 CLC 511
2009 YLR 1296
1997 MLD 2801

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

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)

(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 theCNIC---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 theCNIC---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)

A VERY IMPORTANT JUDGEMENT OF LAHORE HIGH COURT AGAINST NADRA
(2012 PLD 378 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE)

For correction of NAME in NADRA Records/CNIC without getting COURT ORDER

Ss. 9 & 5(3)---National Database and Registration Authority (NIC) Rules 2002, R.13---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---correction on National Identity Card issued by NADRA---Petitioner had sought correction on his national identity card on the ground that the name of his father had been in correctly entered---NADRA (respondent) refused to make the necessary correction on the ground that for a change in the father's name; a court order was necessary---NADRA, to support such contention, relied on its Registration Policy and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)---Validity---Error was clearly a typographic mistake---National database was required to be maintain ed by NADRA, and every citizen was required to be registered and to effectuate such registration, every citizen was issued a national identity card---National Identity Card (cnic ) was a legal document for the identification of a citizen, and its issuance meant that the in formation contain ed therein was valid and correct---NADRA, by not correcting an error in its database or on the cnic , was, in fact, going against the spirit of the Ordinance, and was not performing its primary function and was perpetuating a wrong in its own database, thereby negating the purpose of the national identity card---NADRA, was bound to maintain a correct database and was bound to print correct in formation on the cnic and was obligated to correct any error in its database or the cnic it issued to a citizen---Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and Registration Policy were internal instructions to enable NADRA to achieve optimum level of efficiency and to ensure consistency and infirmity in its procedure and process---Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) did not have the force of law and were not bin din g on the NADRA---Standard Operating Procedures were internal documents, at best, and could not form the basis of denying the petitioner the right to have the correct in formation maintain ed in the citizen database and printed on thecnic ---Standard Operating Procedures could not form the basis for NADRA to refuse to correct an error in its record because if the error was not corrected, it would negate the very purpose of issuing a cnic to a citizen---Delay in filing an application for correction of an office mistake could not hamper or prevent the process of actually correcting the NADRA database, or the cnic ---High Court directed NADRA to treat the pending request of the petitioner as a correction of an office mistake and to correct the petitioner's father's name in the database and issue him a new cnic ---Constitutional petition was allowed, accordingly.

(2012 PLD 378 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE)

Latest citation on correction in date of brith in CNIC.

(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)

Top of Form

Date of brith was corected.

Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 120 ---Suit for declaration---Date of birth recorded in Service Record, correction of---Plaintiff (employee of Pakistan Steel Mills) alleged that his date of birth had wrongly been recorded in Service Record as 21-12-1951 instead of year 1956---Defendant-employer's plea was that suit was time-barred for having been filed after 30 years of joining service---Proof---Year of date of plaintiff birth was mentioned as 1956 in his old and new National Identity Cards, authenticity whereof had not been challenged by defendant---Joining report relied upon by defendant had been admitted by its witness not to be in handwriting of plaintiff---Defendant's witness admitted that plaintiff's date of birth recorded in Medical Card and Insurance paper was year 1956---According to plaintiff that he came to know about such wrong entry in his service record, when he applied for loan and he was informed that he was going to retire in year 2011 according to his date of birth i.e 1951, but defendant declined to correct same in year 2008---Defendant had failed to establish that plaintiff was in knowledge of such entry in Service Record prior to year 2008---Defendant had not produced any Rules/Regulations governing terms and conditions of its employees barring alteration in their date of birth---Suit was decreed in circumstances.
2014 MLD 440 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
 PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION (PVT.) LTD. Versus MUHAMMAD ALIS.42—

2011 CLC 265
2008 SCMR 713
2005 SCMR 152 
2009 YLR 1296 
تاريخ پيدائش جي درستگي لاء اعليٰ عدالتن جا ڏنل تاريخي فيصلا ۔ ۔
CORRECTION IN DATE OF BIRTH 
(S.42 specific relief Act) Suit For Declaration... Plaintiff sought correction in his date of birth in record of Board of Intermediate Secondary Education (defendents) ..Trial court dismissed suit & lower appellate court dismissed appeal. Validity: Evidence produced by board could not rebut plaintiff's date of birth mentioned in birth certificate.... plaintiff a young college student could not be presumed to have instituted the suit in order to gain any undue advantage to the detriment of any one else...concurrent findings of lower court have resulted in grave miscarriage of justice and the same could not be sustained.. Revision was accepted.

Top of Form