DECREE:

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE I, SUKKUR

Before: Mr. Gul Muhammad Brohi)

F. C. SUIT NO. 20 OF 2024

Abdul Wahab S/o Muhammad Hayat Muslim Adult, By caste Magsi R/o Village Sher
Muhammad Magai Taluka Rohri, District Sukkur.

VERSUS

Plaintiff

1. General Manager NADRA, Provincial Headquarters NADRA, Shahra-e-Faisal, Main

Shah, Road Karachi.

2. Deputy General Manager, Satellite Headquarters NADRA, Airport Road, Sukkur.

3. Assistant Manager/Manager NSRC/SHQ. NADRA Sukkur.

Defendants

4. Government of Pakistan, through its secretary. Interior Minister, Islamabad.

‫پاکستان‬

Total:

(Inwards Rs: Forty-five rupees only)

JUDGE

THIS SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION, with following prayers

A. To declare that the CNIC No.45502-1649949-3 issued by the defendants No.2 & 3
with the wrong date of birth of plaintiff, which is totally different to the
educational certificates of plaintiff, hence the necessary correction in the CNIC
of plaintiff is to be made.

B. To grant mandatory injunction whereby direction the defendants to rectify the

necessary correction in the database of plaintiff and issue his CNIC with correct
date of birth as 10.01.1980 as per his school (educational) certificates.

C. To grant any other equitable relief which this Honorable Court may deem fit and
proper under the circumstances of the case.

This suit came up for final hearing on 11.06.2024 in absence of plaintiff

and in presence of his counsel Mr. Muhammad Haneef Buriro and Mr. Safdar Kamal, A.D
Legal RHO NADRA Sukkur before, Mr.Gul Muhammad Brohi, Senior Civil Judge-1, Sukkur.
Judgment passed and announced in open Court. Therefore, the

suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and seal of this court. This the 14th day of June, 2024
sdl-14-06-24 (Abrar Hussain Soomro) Clerk of the Court Senior Civil Judge 1, Sukkur

Sell-14-06-24 (Gul Muhammad Brohi Senior Civil Judge I, Sukkur

MEMO OF COSTS

1. Court fee Stamps on Plaint.

PLAINTIFE

15-00

2. Stamps on applications.

06-00

3. Stamp on process.

22-00

02-00

Bill not file

45-00

DEFENDANTS

Bill not file

(Inwards Rs. Rupees Nil)

Sdl-14-06-24

Clerk of the Court & Taxing Officer

Senior Civil Judge 1. Sukkur

4. Stamps on Power.

5. Advocate fees.

VIL

SOKKU

next

HOW TO THIS DOCUMENT Option 1.5can it through any bar code reader or cellphone
QReader Software Option 2 Directly it from website http://shc.gov. Document Code:
C299887A53B7EDE4302FFB7D052455B6 v.pk/cfms-dc.php

VERIFY

IN THE COURT OF 1st SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SUKKUR

(Before: Gul Muhammad Brohi)

F.C. Suit No.20/2024

Abdul Wahab S/O Muhammad Hayat Muslim, Adult by caste Magsi, R/O Village Sher
Muhammad Magsi Taluka Rohri, Dist: Sukkur

VERSUS

Plaintiff

1. General Manger NADRA, Provincial Headquarters NADRA Shahra-e-Faisal Main Shah

Road Karachi.

2. Deputy General Manager NADRA, Satellite Headquarters NADRA Airport Road Sukkur.

3. Assistant Manager/Manager NSRC/SHQ, NADRA Sukkur.

4. Government of Pakistan, Through its Secretary, Interior Ministry, Islamabad

Defendants

Mr. Muhammad Haneef Buriro, Advocate for plaintiff Mr. Safdar Kamal, A.D Legal
NADRA.

JUDGMENT 11.06.2024

The plaintiff named above has filed instant suit for declaration, mandatory
injunction. Succinct facts of the instant suit are that plaintiff obtained a CNIC
from the defendants. However, his date of birth was incorrectly mentioned in it as
01.01.1974 instead of 10.01.1980. He approached NADRA authorities for correction of
his birth date, but they refused. Therefore he has filed instant suit with
following prayers:-

a. To declare that the CNIC No.45502-1649949-3 issued by the defendants No.2 & 3
with the wrong date of birth of plaintiff, which is totally different to the
educational certificates of plaintiff, hence the necessary correction in the CNIC
of plaintiff is to be made.

KUR

b. To grant mandatory injunction whereby direction the defendants to rectify the

necessary correction in the database of plaintiff and issue his CNIC with correct
date of birth as 10.01.1980 as per his school (educational) certificates.

next 2
4

admissions made by plaintiff in his evidence that he remained silence for about
eight (10) years after obtaining modified CNIC, which suggests that he was
previously satisfied with his date of birth recorded in his CNIC, now he has
changed his mind perhaps with the aim to bring himself within less age limit
prescribed for induction in the Government services or to do service for more
years, as it is common practice in our society. Not only this, the admission made
by plaintiff in his evidence and his silence for more than 10 years make the case
of plaintiff barred by the principle of waiver, acquiescence as well as principle
of estoppels. The version of plaintiff itself shows that plaintiff did not come
before this Court with clean hands. It is well settled principle of law that in
order to seek justice, one must be fair and should do justice himself. In this
support case law of Muhammad Shaiq Hussain o. Samir Manzoor Khokhar reported in
(2003 CLC 1652 Lahore) is very famous.

It is also settled principle of law that one who seeks equity must come with clean
hands. Reliance is placed on Rehmatullah & Others .. Saleh Khan & Others (2007 SCMR
729). The plaintiff also failed to prove that his actual date of birth is
10.01.1980 and not 01.01.1974. I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff
has miserably failed to prove this issue. Thus this issue is answered in negative.

ISSUE NO. 03.

The plaintiff has failed to establish his case for Declaration and Permanent
Injunction, therefore plaintiff is not entitled for any relief claimed in this
suit; therefore in sequel to above discussion on the foregoing Issues, I hereby
dismiss the suit, with no order as to costs. Let such decree be prepared
accordingly.

Announced in open Court

Given under my hand & seal of this Court.

This the 11th day of June, 2024.

Sall-11-06-2009 (Gul Muhammad Brohi) 1st Senior Civil Judge, Sukkur.

next 3

c. To grant any other relief, which deems fit and proper under the circumstances of
the case.
2. The defendants contested the suit by filing their W.S. They have denied case of
the plaintiff in toto. They have resisted the suit on factual and legal grounds. It
is asserted by them that plaintiff applied for issuance of CNIC in the year 2009 on
the basis of his father's CNIC, in which he himself mentioned his date of birth as
01.01.1974 and submitted CNIC form with his own photographs and thumb impressions.
On basis of this information, CNIC was issued to him. He again modified his CNIC in
the year 2014. He remained silent for a considerable long time after getting the
CNIC. They have therefore prayed for dismissal of her suit. On divergent pleadings
following issues were framed by this Court

(1). Whether the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable under the law?

(II). Whether the correct date of birth of plaintiff is 10.01.1980 and not
01.01.1974?

(V). What should the decree be?

After framing of issues plaintiff, Abdul Wahab was examined at Ex.03. He was cross
examined by other side, thereafter, counsel for plaintiff closed his side vide
statement at Ex.04.

The defendants' witness Azhar was examined at Ex.05 he produced authority letter at
Ex.06, scanned copies of CNIC forms at Ex.7 and 08 respectively, thereafter
A.D(Legal) for NADRA closed his side vide statement at Ex.09.

Heard learned counsel for plaintiff, A.D (Legal) for defendants and have gone
through the material available on record.

My-findings on the above issues with reasons are as under:-

FINDINGS

Issue No.01

Issue No.02

Issue No.03

In negative.

In negative.

Suit Dismissed

REASONS

Issues No.01

The burden of proof of this Issue lies upon the defendants, as the defendants have
challenged the maintainability of the suit so also stated that suit is barred by
law.

IDGE

next 4
From the perusal of whole the material available on record reveals that plaintiff
has passed his primary education and he had applied for his CNIC in the year 2009
by filling CNIC form, dully attested and signed. He again get modification of his
CNIC in the year 2014. The perusal of record reveals that plaintiff was having
knowledge regarding his date of birth at the time of applying CNIC Le in the year
2009 and 2014. such fact admitted by him in his cross examination that his date of
birth was mentioned as 01.01.1974. He also admitted that he is serving in Municipal
corporation/Baldiyat. It means plaintiff was in knowledge regarding his date of
birth at the time of applying for CNIC in the year 2009 and 2014 respectively and
plaintiff has filed the instant suit in the year 2024 after passing of about ten
years whereas the limitation provided for filling suit for declaration six years as
per article 120 of limitation Act. Hence in view of the above mentioned facts and
circumstances it reveals that plaintiff has filed the suit after delay of about ten
years, which is clearly time barred and not maintainable as per law. Therefore this
issue is answered in negative.

Issues No.2.

Burden of proof of this issue lies upon the plaintiff. Plaintiff in support of his
pleadings deposed that his actual date of birth is 10.01.1980, whereas the
defendants mentioned his date of birth as 01.01.1974 in his CNIC. Plaintiff has
further admitted in his cross examination that he is serving in Municipal
Corporation. He further admitted that he applied his CNIC in the year 2009 and got
his medication in the year 2015. Plaintiff has not produced any document ie birth
certificate, educational certificate etc; in his support, which could suggest that
his actual date of birth is 10.01.1980. He has also failed to produce his services
documents. Perusal of cross examination of plaintiff reveals that he was in
knowledge regarding his date of birth as 10.10.1974 since 2009 then 2014 and he has
filed instant suit in the year 2024 after delay of about ten years. The perusal of
CNIC form shows that same was submitted by the plaintiff after getting its attested
from the gazatted officer and then submitted to the NADRA office wherein picture,
signature and thumb impression affixed are of plaintiff which he never denied by
the plaintiff. It is crystal clear from

LJU

BYUKKUR