Mst. Noomana Vs Director General NADRA

JUDGMENTSHEET

IN IIIE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT.

BANNUBENCH.

C.R 5 025.

Mst. Noomana Vs The Director General NADRA

JTIDGMENT

DateofhearinC'- !!W

For petitionerr Mr. Zia Ullah Khan. Advoeale.

For Respondents: Mr. Abdus Salam Kundi Law Offrcer.NADRA.

ABDAL FA YAZ. J.- The petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court to assail the judgment and decree datad25.ll.2024 passed by the leamed Senior Civil Judge (Judicial), Bannu, whereby the \ petitioner's suit for declaration and perpetual mandatory injunction was dismissed. The subsequent judgment and decree dated 18.02.2025 passed by the learned District Judge-I, Bannu, whereby the petitioner's

appeal met the same fate, are also under challenge through the present revision.

2.Brieffacts, necessary for the disposal of the instant revision, are that the petitioner (plaintifD instituted a civil suit seeking declaration to the effect that her actual date of birtlr is l7-04-2}O4and hercorrect name is "Noomana'', as reflected in her Secondary School Certificate (SSC). It was further prayed that the respondents/defendants be directed to rectify the petitioner's Computerized National Identity Card (CNIC), wherein her date of birth has been erroneously recorded as 15-07- 1990 and her name wrongly mentioned as "Romana" instead of ,, . It was

averred that despite repeated requests and representations made to the respondents for correction of the said particulars, no heed was

paid, compelling the petitioner to seek redress before the Civil Court.

3.The respondents/defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement, denying the claim of the On the basis of

divergent pleadings of the parties, issues were framed. After recording evidence and hearing arguments, the leamed tial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree duted25.ll.2o24. The petitioner's appeal prefened before the leamed District Judge-I, Bannu was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 18.02.2025.

4.Leamed counsel for the parties were heard at length and the entire record, including evidence oral as well as , has been minutely examined with their assistance'

5.The crux of the petitioner's claim is that hertrue date of bintr is 17-04-2004 and her

comect narne is Noomana, whereas the respondents have wrongly recorded her date of birth as 15-07-1990 and her name as Romana in the NADRA record' In support of her stance, the petitioner examined two witresses and produced her Secondary School Certificate, which was exhibited as Exh-PW- l/3. On the other hand, the respondents examined a representative of NADRA, who produced and exhibited the relevant NADRA record as Exh-DW-l/I.

6.A careful perusal of the record reveals that both the leamed tial Court and the learned appellate Court placed reliance primarily on the NADRA record, while discarding the SSC on the ground that the petitioner had passed the ssc in a private caPacitY.

, NADRA record does carry

weight; however, the same is not

conclusive, nor itnmune from judicial scrutiny, particularly where cogent and reliable documentary evidence to the contrary is available on record.

7.It is noteworthy that acomputerized mariage registration certificate of the petitioner's parents was available on the file' According to the said document, the marriage of the petitioner's parents was solemnized on09-10-1991. If this document is taken into t consideration, the recording of the petitioner's date of birth as 15-07-1990 in the NADRA record becomes factually impossible and unnatural, as it precedes the marriage of her parents. This glaring contradiction strikes at the very credibility of the NADRA enry regarding the petitioner's date of birth' Sigrrificantly, the aforesaid marriage registation certificate was neither objected by

the respondents through any written document nor the same was challenged or

during the course of arguments by the learned Law Offtcer NADRA. In the absence of any rebuttal, the said document canies strong probative value and conclusively establishes that the petitioner could not have been bom prior to the marriage of her parents.

Consequently, the date of birth reflected in the SSC as l7-04-2004appears to be consistent, plausible, and supported by the surrounding

8.As far as the name of the petitioner is the Secondary School Cedificate

record, her name as'Noomana" instead of Romana and in non-consideration thereof would cause serious and irreparable prejudice to the petitioner, particularly with respect to her academic career and future prospects' No

convincing justification has been fumished by the respondents for recording her name as "Romana" in the CMC, nor has any evidence been produced to rebut the correctness of the name zN mentioned in the SSC.

9.In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that both the learned Courts below misread and non-read the material evidence, particularly the marriage registration certificate of the petitioner's parents, resulting in miscaniage of justice.

Such illegality and material irregularif squarely attact the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

10.Resultantly, the instant civil revision is allowed. The impugred judgments and decrees dated 25.11.2024 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge (Judicial), Bannu,

and dated 18.02.2025 passed by the leamed District Judge-I, Bannu, are hereby set aside.

11.The petitioner's suit is decreed, and it is declared that the petitioner's correct date of birlh is 17-04-2004 and her correct name is "Noomana". The respondents, particularly NADRA, are directed to rectiff the petitioner's CNIC record , stictly 1n

accordance with law, within a stipulated period. Revision allowed accordingly .Slrlt @ilah6tqoa -Sd- Judge

6.D Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdt l Fqvaz.

I