Monday, 10 February 2014

What is Limitation in case of Declaratory Suits?

The Limitation is 6 years in all cases where limitation is not given in law. This provision is present in Article 120 of the Limitation Act. The proof of same is present in the following judgment..

PLJ 2013 Quetta 83
Present: Qazi Faez Isa, C.J.
ABDUL MAJEED and 3 others--Respondents
Civil Revision (Suo Motu) No. 244 of 2012, decided on 14.12.2012.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)--
----S. 115(1)--Suo motu exercise of revisional jurisdiction by High Court--Limitation--No time limit prescribed for exercising such jurisdiction.     [P. 90] A
PLD 2010 SC 1186 and 1999 SCMR 1060 rel.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)--
----S. 115(1)--Non-availing of remedy of appeal against judgment challenged before High Court in revision petition--Question of--Whether High Court can invoke revisional powers if available remedy of an appeal--Effect--Availability of alternate remedy or non-filing of appeal--No time limit prescribed for exercise of revisional powers by High Court and non-filing of an appeal does not preclude High Court from exercising such powers itself.           [Pp. 90 & 91] B & C
AIR 1933 Sind 200 and PLD 1975 SC 678 rel.
Specific Relief Act, 1877 (I of 1877)--
----S. 42--University of Balochistan Act (III of 1996), S. 3(3)--National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, (VIII of 2000),
S. 3(2)--Civil Procedure Code, (V of 1908), Ss.12(2), 20, 115(1) & O.I, Rr. 3, 9--Limitation Act, (IX of 1908), S. 3 & Art. 120--Suit for declaration--Correction of date of birth of plaintiff (ADSJ) recorded in his NIC issued by (NADRA) and his degree issued by University of Balochistan, sought on basis of Age Certificate issued by M.S. of Hospital--Defendants arrayed in the suit being Assistant Controller of Examination of University and DRO of the District where suit was filed--Suit was decreed by District Judge--University's application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. was neither decided nor dismissed by District Judge--Suo motu exercise of revisional jurisdiction by High Court on basis of note of its Registrar prepared 3 years and 8 months after said judgment/decree, when plaintiff on its basis sought correction of his date of birth in record of High Court--Validity--Non-suing University and NADRA by their respective names, but instead suing their respective employees by plaintiff would constitute non-joinder of necessary parties--Incorrect description of parties would not be a fatal defect, but plaintiff despite objection raised by University had not amended plaint--Impugned judgment/decree had not been passed against proper parties, thus, same was not binding upon them--Plaintiff's sole object to file such suit was to change his date of birth in record of High Court by extending his date of retirement by three years, but had not impleaded therein High Court through its Registrar--Record sought by plaintiff to be corrected were at Quetta, where alleged cause of action had accrued to him and he was posted--District Judge had exercised territorial jurisdiction not vested in him by law--Suit was time barred for having been filed 31 years after plaintiff got Matriculation Certificate--Accepting date of birth put forward by plaintiff would mean that he would have started schooling at age of two years and done matriculation at age of twelve years--Form-A submitted for getting NIC and lying on record, plaintiff had himself written his date of birth as "1957", which he later on had got changed to 5-12-1960--District Judge had not decided University's application, wherein not only serious allegations were made against plaintiff, but important legal questions were raised--High Court set aside impugned judgment/decree and declared all actions taken pursuant thereto including changes made in plaintiff's degree, national identity card and record of High Court to be illegal, of no legal effect and void ab initio.          [Pp. 91, 92, 93, 94 & 95] D, F, H, I, J, K, L & M
PLD 2010 SC 1186; 1999 SCMR 1060; AIR 1933 Sind 200; PLD 1975 SC 678 rel.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)--
----O. I, Rr. 3 & 9--Incorrect description of parties--Not a fatal defect.           [P. 91] E
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)--
----O. IX, R. 6(1)--Ex-parte decree, passing of--Duty of Court--Court while proceeding ex-parte must ensure passing of its judgment against a legal party.        [P. 92] G
Registrar High Court for Petitioner.
Respondent No. 1 (in person).
Mr. Nazeer Khajjak, Advocate for Respondent No. 3.
Date of hearing: 7.9.2012.
A note was put up by the Registrar of the High Court on 13th August 2012 which concluded in the following terms:
"In the interest of justice and in order to correct the apparent illegality committed by the Court, this Court may exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, C.P.C. and call for the record of the case and the some may be fixed for hearing."
Therefore, in exercise of the revisional powers of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure ("CPC") the note of the Registrar was converted into this Civil Revision No. 244 of 2012 (hereinafter "the petition"), wherein the Registrar of the High Court was arrayed as the petitioner and Mr. Abdul Majeed as Respondent No. 1. The illegality referred to in the note was the judgment and decree dated 31st March 2006 of the District Judge, Zhob in Civil Suit No. 18 of 2005, filed by Mr. Abdul Majeed (respectively "the suit" and "the plaintiff"). The suit was filed against the (1) `Assistant Controller of B.I.S.E. Quetta (Balochistan)', the (2) `Assistant Controller of U.O.B Examination' and the (3) "D.R.O. (District Registration Office Zhob)". The defendants in the suit were respectively arrayed as Respondents Nos. 2, 3 in the petition.
2.  The suit was titled, "Declaration and Correction the Date of Birth of plaintiff" and sought, "to declare his [the plaintiff's] date of birth 5-2-1963 instead of 1960" and, "to give a directions to Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 to correct the date of birth of plaintiff as 5-2-1963 instead of 1960 in their respective records". The file of the suit was sent for, and it transpired that the suit was filed on the basis of a document titled `Age Certificate', reproduced hereunder:
"It is certified that I have examined Mr. Abdul Majid s/o Haji Ghulam Nabi Today. In our Opinion his, her age is about (42) Years old."
The Age Certificate bears signatures above rubber-stamps of the `Medical Superintendent' and `Dental Surgian' [sic], District Headquarter, Hospital, Zhob.
3.  The suit was contested by the National Database and Registration Authority ("NADRA") and a written statement was filed, stating that:
"The plaintiff has changed his date of birth in D.R.O. record from 1957 to 2-5-1960 prior to the filing of the instant suit as such copy of RG-1 form of the plaintiff is as annexure-A wherein his rectified date of birth is mentioned. Now again plaintiff wants to change his date of birth from 1960 to 1963 which is not permissible under any law if Court would take into consideration the age of the plaintiff as 1963 then the plaintiff would become the age of 12 years at the time of passing of matriculation in 1975. "
4.  The following issues were framed by the Court on 3rd June 2005:--
(i)         Whether the actual date of birth of plaintiff is 5-2-1963, but defendants wrongly recorded it as 1960?
(ii)        Whether plaintiff had no knowledge about wrong entries of his date of birth and firstly he came to know about it in the year 2005?
(iii)       What the relief would be?
The District Judge proceeded ex parte against the defendants and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff vide judgment dated 31st March 2006. He relied upon the statements of the attorney of the plaintiff (Haji Abdul Salam), and the statements of Sarbuland Khan and Haji Ghulam Nabi, filed by said attorney, and the Age Certificate, purportedly issued by the said doctors, even though neither the Medical Superintendent nor the Dental Surgeon came to give evidence.
5.  The District Judge did not consider the contents of the written statement filed by NADRA and the documents attached therewith, which included Form-A (Alif) of the plaintiff, wherein the plaintiff in column 11 against the entry `date of birth' had written "1957", which the plaintiff subsequently had changed to 5th February 1960. Another document attached was the Secondary School Certificate of the plaintiff, which stated that the, plaintiff's "date of birth as recorded in the Admission Form is 5-2-1960 (5th day of February one thousand nine hundred and sixty only)" and that the plaintiff had taken the examination, "held in the month of March-April, 1975 as a private candidate". Significantly, the plaintiff did not produce any of the documents which he sought to have corrected to the extent of his age mentioned therein. The District Judge did not record any finding on Issue No. 2.
6.  That after the suit was decreed an application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. was submitted on 19th December, 2007 by the University of Balochistan ("University") through its Additional Registrar, notice whereof was issued on 6th February, 2007, however, the application was neither granted nor dismissed, and appears to have been overlooked by the learned judge. The said application attached copies of a number of documents, including the Examination Form submitted by the plaintiff wherein he had mentioned his date of birth as 5th February 1960, and the degrees obtained by the plaintiff from time to time, wherein too the date of birth of the plaintiff was shown as 5th February 1960. In the application submitted by the University it was stated that, (i) the plaintitf should be "stopped from challenging the same [his degrees] by filing a baseless suit"; (ii) that the cause of action, if any, arose to the plaintiff at Quetta and the Court at Zhob had no jurisdiction, (iii) that under Section 3(3) of the University of Balochistan Act, 1996 the University could not be sued through an Assistant Controller of Examination, therefore, the suit was bad for misjoinder, (iv) that the medical certificate was not proved, according to law, (v) that the judgment and decree was obtained "through mis-representation and suppression of facts" and, (vi) if it be assumed that the date of birth of the plaintiff is 5th February 1963 it would mean that he had passed his matriculation examination at the age of twelve and had obtained admission in school when he was just two years old.
7.  In the note/the petition the Registrar further stated that the plaintiff was a judicial officer when the suit was filed, and is presently holding the post of an Additional District and Sessions Judge and in all the seniority lists, that have been issued from time to time, his date of birth has been mentioned as 5th February 1960; therefore, if the plaintiff wanted his age changed in the record maintained by the High Court, the Registrar of the High Court should have been arrayed as defendant, since he was a necessary party, but this was not done. The Registrar has also put up the application dated 18th March 1987 submitted by Mr. Abdul Majeed to the Balochistan Public Service Commission (the Commission') when he applied for the post of civil judge wherein he mentioned his date of birth as 5th February 1960.
8.  Mr. Atiq-ur-Rehman was the District Judge Zhob and had passed the said judgment and decree. Subsequently, he was appointed as the Registrar and whilst working as Registrar a note was prepared on 7th tlecember 2009 stating that Mr. Abdul Majeed, Additional Sessions Judge, sought to change his date of birth pursuant to the judgment and decree dated 31st March 2006. This note was prepared three years and eight months after the date of the said judgment and decree. Mr. Atiq-ur-Rehman, Registrar, at Paragraph No. 290 of the said note wrote on 8th December, 2009:
"The record be corrected in the light of judgment/decree, NADRA and educational authorities, may perhaps be carried out" [sic].
However, at no stage the approval of the competent authority, i.e. of the Chief Justice of the Balochistan High Court was taken.
9.  Notice was issued to Mr. Abdul Majeed and an opportunity to engage counsel was also provided to him, but he stated that he does not want to engage a counsel and would be arguing the matter himself, as recorded in order sheet dated 31st August, 2012. Subsequently, on 7th September, 2012 he stated that the petition may be decided on the basis of the available record, and that he does not contest the petition. However, in the interest of justice another opportunity was provided to him to submit his reply in writing, which opportunity was availed by him, and he submitted his reply and contested this petition. The following points have been derived from the reply submitted by Mr. Abdul Majeed:--
(1)        The plaintiff "took recourse to a competent Court of jurisdiction, appealable judgment/decree ... none of the respondents preferred an appeal under Section 96, C.P.C. within the stipulated period on account of which, the appealable judgment/decree attained finality."
(2)        "Revision is incompetent in an appealable decree in accordance with provision of sub-section (1) of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908." And "... a revision is not competent...after the lapse of a matter of years."
(3)        "Revision under Section 115, C.P.C. is competent only when there lies no appeal in the case and there is inherent lack of jurisdiction to pass an order."
(4)        "There is also no inherent lack of jurisdiction of the subordinate Court one way or the other warranting revision after about six years. The policy of law of limitation requires state matters to be laid at rest for the peace and tranquility of society. The law, the principles of justice as well as the larger public good promotes the policy of well being of the public including socio-economic and financial stability."
However, Mr. Abdul Majeed did not submit a reply on the merits of the case nor disputed the contents of the petition, nor the documents which were attached with the written statement and application under Section 12(2) filed in the suit.
10.  The University, through the Controller Examination, also filed a reply, which mostly repeated the points taken by the University in the application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. (supra) and prayed that the revision be accepted and judgment and decree dated 31st March 2006 be set aside.
11.  This revision petition raises the following points for consideration:--
a.         Whether any time period is prescribed within which this Court can itself exercise revisional powers?
b.         Whether this Court is barred from exercising jurisdiction under Section 115, C.P.C. if an appeal has not been filed?
c.         Whether the trial Court had the requisite jurisdiction?
d.         Whether the judgment and decree suffers from any illegality or material irregularity?
12.  I first proceed to consider the jurisdictional points that have been raised by the plaintiff, and in particular to what extent the High Court can of itself (or suo motu) exercise powers under Section 115, C.P.C. It would therefore be appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of said provision:
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
(c)        to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit.
In the case of Banori (Mst.) v. Jilani PLD 2010 Supreme Court 1186, it was held (in Paragraph 4 of the judgment) that, "the power under Section 115, C.P.C. was basically a power exercisdble suo motu. Therefore, no restriction whatsoever was placed on the sources from which the information regarding any error, illegality or irregularity of the kind mentioned in S. 115, C.P.C. could reach the High Court... And since no limitation of time regulated the said matter, therefore, such a revision petition could, in theory, be filed even after months and years of a decision taken by a subordinate Court". The Hon'ble Supreme Court enunciated eight principles with regard to the exercise of revisional powers and recorded the same respectively as (a) to (h), three of which are relevant for the purpose of this revision as under:--
(a)        that the jurisdiction conferred by Section 115, C.P.C. is essentially a supervisory jurisdiction of superintendence and control meant to ensure correction of illegalities and irregularities found in the decisions of the Courts subordinate to the revisional Court;
(b)        that in the discharge of its said obligation, the revisional Court had not been placed at the mercy of the parties to a lis or of some other person and was required to act even suo motu;
(c)        that no law prescribed any limit of time for such a Court within which such an error could be rectified;
In the case of Rehmdil v. Province of Balochistan 1999 SCMR 1060, the Supreme Court held that even if a revision petition filed by an aggrieved party is barred by time the Court, "still has a discretion to invoke its own suo motu revisional authority to advance justice and to suppress mischief, albeit only when a jurisdictional error, in contemplation of the section, is encountered". I can therefore conclude that there is no time limit within which the High Court can itself exercise revisional powers.
13.  The next question that requires consideration is whether the High Court can invoke revisional powers if the available remedy of an appeal has not been availed of. Sub-section (1) of Section 115 enables the High Court to, "call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and [emphasis added] in which no appeal lies thereto"; the use of `and' suggests two distinct categories. This interpretation is confirmed when we compare the revisional powers that can be exercised by the District Court provided in sub-section (2) of Section 115 CPC, wherein the word `and' is significantly absent, reproduced hereunder:
"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 ...."
I may also with advantage refer to two precedents, which state that the High Court can exercise revisional powers without an appeal having been preferred. In the case of Naoomal v. Tarachand, AIR 1933 Sind 200, the distinction between appeals and revisions was succinctly set out, and it was stated that in certain cases revisional powers may be exercised without an appeal:
"In a suit or an appeal the points to be decided ordinarily are those on which the parties are at variance. A revision application stands on a different footing. It is a matter between a higher Court and a lower Court; in fact revisional powers may in certain cases be exercised without an appeal or an application by any of the parties concerned."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the availability of alternate remedy is not an absolute bar on the High Court exercising revisional powers, in the case of Manager, Jammu & Kash. State Property v. Khuda Yar, PLD 1975 SC 678, it held (at page 695), that:
"Although ordinarily, Courts have declined to exercise the revisional jurisdiction where an alternative remedy is available, yet this is not an inflexible rule to be rigidly followed and a departure could be justifiably made if required by the circumstances of the case. Reference may be made in this regard to Ayodhyaprasad v. Secretary of State (2). In Lila v. Mahange and others, a Full Bench case authority, it was observed by Sulaiman, Acting Chief Justice as follows:
"Section 115 is no doubt discretionary and therefore it is open to the High Court to decline to interfere in particular cases. As a matter of practice it may be conceded that ordinarily the High Court would not interfere if another convenient remedy is open to an applicant, particularly when that remedy is by way of appeal to a lower Court. But it cannot be laid down as a general proposition that the High Court has no power of interference at all or should not interfere where there is another remedy by way of a suit open to the applicant."
14.  That having concluded that there is no time limit prescribed for exercise of revisional powers by the High Court, and non-filing of an appeal does not preclude the High Court from exercising such powers itself, it now needs examination whether the District Court (a) exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it, or (b) failed to. exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) in the exercise of its jurisdiction acted illegally or with material irregularity. The suit was filed to change the date of birth mentioned in the degrees issued by the University and in the national identity card of the plaintiff, and respectively the `Assistant Controller of U.O.B. Examination' and `D.R.O. (District Registration Office Zhob) were arrayed as defendants. Section 3(3) of the University of Balochistan Act, 1996 stipulates that the University is a "body corporate by the name of the University of Balochistan ... and may sue and be sued by the said name" [emphasis added]; however, the plaintiff did not sue the University by its name, but instead an employee of the University, which would constitute non-joinder of necessary party. Similarly, Section 3(2) of the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 requires that any suit against the Notional Database and Registration Authority shall be brought against that name, but instead the plaintiff arrayed D.R.O. (District Registration Office Zhob)', which too constituted non-joinder of necessary party. I am aware that the incorrect description of parties is not a fatal defect, but the plaintiff made no effort to amend the title despite the fact that the University took a specific objection in this regard. The plaintiff has also taken the defence that no appeal was filed  by  the  defendants  against  the  judgment,  which  plea could be rebutted on the ground that the proper parties were not before the Court, and therefore not aggrieved by the judgment, as it was not binding on them. The Court too is required to ensure that when it is proceeding ex parte, and gives judgment, it should be against a legal party.
15.  The plaintiff vide letter dated 21st July 2009 wrote to the Registrar of the High Court and called upon him to change the High Court's record and insert "5-2-1963 in the record as correct date of birth of the undersigned," since he had obtained judgment and decree dated 31st March 2006 in his favour. The plaintiff, however, had not joined the High Court through the Registrar as a defendant in the suit, despite the fact that the sole objective of the suit appears to be to change his date of birth in the High Court's record, by extending his date of retirement by three years. Whereas an ordinary litigant may not know about the requirements of the law a person who had held judicial office for about eighteen years surely is expected to; so too Mr. Atiq-ur-Rehman, the District Judge Zhob who had passed the judgment and decree.
16.  The filing of the suit in Zhob was also inexplicable, since the record keepers, and the records that the plaintiff wanted changed, were at Quetta. The purported cause of action would also have occurred at Quetta. Section 20, C.P.C. directs that such a suit is to filed either at the place where the defendants reside or carry on business or where the cause of action arose; which places were at Quetta, and not at Zhob. The District Judge Zhob, therefore, ran foul of Section 115(l)(a), as he "exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law".
17.  That another illegality committed by the District Judge was  entertaining a suit considerably after the prescribed period of limitation had expired. The suit could at best have been filed within a period of six years (Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908) from the date that the Secondary School Certificate (Matriculation) was obtained by the plaintiff. The plaintiff however filed the suit thirty one years after he had done his Matriculation. In Rehmdil's case (supra) the Civil Court had ignored the question of limitation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held (at page 1071 G), that, "It is not for the defendant in a suit, as wrongly held, to show that the suit is barred by time but for the plaintiff to establish that he is in time, not to mention the obligation of the Court to independently advert to limitation, as enjoined by Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1908". It was further held that, under such circumstances the revisional powers of the High Court should be invoked. Consequently, clause (c) of Section 115(1), C.P.C. too is attracted, since the District Judge acted illegally or with material irregularity.
18.  I now proceed to consider the merits of the case. The High Court should not use its revisional powers if it would come to a different conclusion than the one arrived at in the said judgment, however, in this case if the date of birth put forward by the plaintiff is accepted it would lead to some amazing, if not absurd, results; the plaintiff would have started his schooling when he would have been two years old and would have done his Matriculation when he would have been twelve years old. There were also a number of other documents on the record, which were ignored, including Form-A submitted by the plaintiff for obtaining identity card, where the plaintiff himself wrote his date of birth as "1957", which he subsequently got changed to 5th February 1960. Thus here too clause (c) of Section 115(1), C.P.C. is attracted, and it can be safely concluded that the District Judge acted illegally or, at the least with material irregularity.
19.  That it is also not understandable why the application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. submitted by the University of Balochistan, which made serious allegations against the plaintiff, and which also raised a number of important legal questions was not decided, despite the fact that notice thereof was issued.
20.  That a Divisional Bench of this Court in the case of Muhammad Murad Ali Bugti v. Senior Member Board of Revenue (C.P. No. 670 of 2011) attended to the alteration in the date of birth of a person in service. It would be useful to reproduce the following extracts from the said judgment as they are equally applicable to the present case:
"8.  Paragraph 4 of Regulation-I dated 27th July 1994, of the Services and General Administration Department, Government of Balochistan, mandated' that, "no request for alteration in the recorded date of birth of a Government servant shall be entertained unless the Government servant applies for it within two years from the date of his entry into Government service." Rule 12-A of the Balochistan Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974, went further and stated that, "The date of birth once recorded of a civil servant at the time of joining the Government service shall be final and no alteration in the date of birth of a civil servant shall be permissible." Presently the matter is attended to by Rule 11 of the Balochistan Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 2009. which whilst following Rule 12-A of the 1974 Rules creates only one exception, "where a clerical mistake occurs." A clerical mistake is one where, for example, in the record a mistake was committed that is discernible from the record. It is an error which can only be explained by considering it to be a slip, mistake or omission on the part of the person who prepared the document. And such clerical mistake too can only be corrected within two years of entering into service and on the recommendation of a four member Enquiry Committee... ."
"9.  Petitions, like this one, and we may add suits too, are not maintainable that seek to change the date of birth of a civil servant, inter alia for the reason that the law provides an alternative remedy. Moreover, what cannot be done directly can also not be done indirectly. Therefore, if a civil servant first seeks to have the date recorded on his CNIC and/or any educational degree changed, by only arraying NADRA and/or the applicable educational board as defendant/s or respondent/s, as the case may be, and after obtaining a favourable judgment/decree proceeds to have the date of birth changed in his service record, the same cannot be done, and as the concerned department/authority was not made a party to the case and no prayer was made to change the date recorded in the service record."
"10.  There are innumerable cases where Government servants and others have resorted to have their date of birth changed either to extend their tenure in service or else to obtain some advantage, for instance, a job prescribes a certain age and the applicant has become overage. A person who succeeds in becoming `younger' through such tactics makes a mockery of the applicable law and/or rules and also offends nature. A person is born when he leaves his mother's womb, and not when he decides he was born. What is more, a person who fraudulently becomes `younger' effectively steals from the public and denies his colleagues the benefits due to them. If he is in service after the prescribed retirement age then he continues to burden the public exchequer, and his subordinates are also deprived of a promotion, as the position occupied by such person would have fallen vacant upon his retirement. Similarly, if an overage person, after reducing his age by manipulation, applies for an age specific position he also violates the applicable law/rule, and also the rights of all those applicants who are actually of the prescribed age."
21.  I thus conclude that the District Judge at Zhob exercised jurisdiction which was not vested in him by law, acted illegally and with material irregularity. Therefore, I have no hesitation in setting aside the judgment and decree dated 31st March 2006 passed in Suit No. 18 of 2005 and to declare that the same is illegal, of no legal effect and ab initio void;, consequently, any action taken pursuant thereto is of no legal effect and needs to be reversed, including the changes made to Mr. Abdul Majeed's  date  of  birth  in his degrees and national identity card.
Mr. Atiq-ur-Rehman, the then Registrar High Court's purported decision at Paragraph No. 290 of the note on Mr. Abdul Majeed (Nasir's) file dated 8th December 2009 is also declared to be illegal, of no regal effect and void ab initio, and the Registrar is directed to cancel the same.
22.  This revision is allowed in the aforesaid terms, with costs in the sum of Rupee five thousand to be paid by the Respondent No. 1. The Office is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the University of Balochistan, the National Database and Registration Authority and the Registrar High Court for information and compliance.
 (R.A.) Revision accepted

No comments:

Post a Comment

Contact International Lawyer

If you have any queries related with this post you can contact at

Salman Yousaf Khan
International Lawyer