Muhammad Usman Vs National Database & Registration Authority (NADRA) through Chairman NSRC Isd etc

Stereo. H C J D A 38

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE.

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

CR. No. 8852 of 2025

Muhammad Usman versus NADRA through its Chairman, NSRC, Islamabad and 2 others.

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing: 29.10.2026 Petitioner by: Mr. Adnan Javed, Advocate. Respondents by: Ms. Ammaima Khan Raja, Advocate/Law Officer for

NADRA.

In attendance: Ms. Shehzeen Abdullah, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

Mr. Qamar Hanif Ramay, Assistant Attorney General for Pakistan.

Mr. Muhammad Abid, Civil Judge/Research Officer, Lahore High Court, Lahore.

M/s Muhammad Dilbar Ghauri, Kashif Hussain, Subhan Ali, Mazhar Hussain Tahir, Malik Khalid Tanveer, Abdul Manan Sipra, Rana Athar Raza Khan, Barrister Muhammad Sohail Babar Khan, Barrister Saeed Hussain Nagra, Sh. Faisal Sikandar Iqbal, Muhammad Shahid Malik, Ali Asghar Mian, Hassan Tariq, Ch. M. Fayyaz Sandhu, Sarmad Ahmad Ghani, Mahar Salman Qutab, Syed Qaiser Gillani, Syed Hassan Abbas Raza, Faisal Anwar Minhas, Ijaz Ahmad, Muhammad Naeem Mazhar, Ch. Imtiazullah Warraich, Ch. Muhammad Naseer, Barrister Rana Khizar Hayat, Shehryar Farhan Beg, Barrister Karim Ullah Sraw, Muhammad Waleed Waheed Chaudhry, Asif Raza Rasheed, Barrister Shahid Masood Khan, Syed Imran Ehsan, Muhammad Badar Butt, Abdullah Haroon, Muhammad Saeed Bin Noman, Dr. Muhammad Azeem Raja, Syed Ali Allow-u-Din, Muhammad Afzal, Mateen ul Haq Ch., M. Haris Jutt, Shafique Ahmad Bhutta, Zahid Saeed, Omer Riaz Chaudhary, Ms. Musarrat Rehman, Ms. Maryam Khan Khosa, Ms. Zubera Bashir Chaudhry, Ms. Roha Khan, Ms. Moniba Nadeem and Ms. Asifa Ahmad, Advocates.

MUZAMIL AKHTAR SHABIR, J. The petitioner, Muhammad Usman, (‘the petitioner’) feeling aggrieved of concurrent dismissal of his suit for declaration has filed the titled Civil Revision under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) and called in question judgments and decrees dated

CR No. 8852 of 2025 Dated: 29.10.2026

21.06.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge, Daska and 13.12.2024 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Daska respectively (‘impugned decrees’) by claiming the same to have been passed against the facts of the case and law on the subject and prays for setting the same aside and seeks his suit to be decreed.

2.Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner maintains that the impugned judgments and decrees are against facts of the case and law on the subject and are result of misreading and non-reading of evidence, therefore, are liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the respondents has defended the impugned judgments and decrees by claiming the same to have been passed in accordance with law.

3.The brief facts as stated in the plaint are that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration contending therein that his correct name is Muhammad Usman, correct name of his father is Muhammad Attique-ur-Rehman, caste Bhatti and resident of Faqiranwali, correct date of birth is 24.03.2001 and the correct name of his mother is Sumaira Yasmeen and the same particulars are mentioned in his birth certificate as well as DNA report. The NADRA instead issued him CNIC bearing No.34101-2594293-9 incorporating his particulars as Muhammad Irfan son of Zulfiqar Ahmad resident of Post office Ladhaywala Goraya Kotli Dianat Ray, District Gujranwala, date of birth as 28.11.1993 and name of mother as Zareena Begum against the law and facts and the same is liable to be cancelled. The petitioner requested for issuance of CNIC with his correct particulars referred above and claimed that he contacted the respondents for cancellation of CNIC bearing No.34101-2594293-9 and obtaining his CNIC with his correct particulars but they lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately refused. It was claimed that Zulfiqar Ali, father mentioned in petitioner’s CNIC, and his wife Mst. Zareena Begum were family friend of his parents who adopted him in childhood. The adopting parents mentioned in his particulars, did not take his proper care and educate him that is why he reverted back to his parents. So, on such grudge, Zulfiqar Ahmad and Zareena Begum got incorporated his birth in Union Council, Ladhaywala Gorraya which was antedated and other particulars were also incorrect. The petitioner being illiterate remained ignorant of such incorrect particulars and used said CNIC. After getting knowledge of his actual parents, he started residing with them and for obtaining CNIC with actual particulars he filed suit for declaration along with cancellation of birth certificate No. L17807609 dated 07.04.2016 along

CR No. 8852 of 2025 Dated: 29.10.2026

with permanent injunction titled as "Muhammad Usman Vs. Union Council etc" and the same was decreed by the learned court of Civil Judge, Gujranwala vide judgment & decree dated 05.01.2024. According to said decree, the birth certificate No.L17807609 dated 07.04.2016 issued by Union Council, Ladhaywala Goraya was cancelled and petitioner was issued birth certificate by Union Council, Budha Goraya, Tehsil Daska. The petitioner, accordingly maintained that he applied to the respondents for issuance of CNIC with alleged correct particulars and to cancel the earlier above referred CNIC but was refused, hence, he filed this suit with the prayer that his earlier particulars with CNIC be cancelled/deleted and he be issued CNIC with alleged correct particulars. Respondents submitted contested written statement and after framing of issues evidence was led and the suit was dismissed and the appeal filed by the petitioner also met the same fate. The operative portion of the judgment passed by the appellate court is reproduced below: “17. The documents relied by the appellant are marriage registration certificate of Muhammad Attique-ur-Rehman and Sumaira Yasmin Exh.P-1, birth registration certificate of Muhammad Usman Exh.P-2, report of Forensic DNA & Scrology Analysis, issued by Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore vide serial No.0000874011, Exh.P-3 and the judgment of Civil Court Exh.P-4. So far as the marriage registration certificate Exh.P-1 is concerned, there is no denial of the same. However, the appellant has firstly to prove himself to be the son of Muhammad Attique-Ur-Rehman & Sumaira Yasmin. In this regard, the appellant has claimed his DNA matching with Sumaira Yasmin to be sufficient to prove him the son of both Muhammad Attique-Ur-Rehman and Sumaira Yasmin but the same is not sufficient. In this regard, it is observed that the appellant did not array Zulfiqar Ahmad and Zarina Begum as defendants in whose parentage he was already registered in the record and without their presence no such litigation as to the cancellation of their parentage and CNIC and entry of a fresh claimed parentage is maintainable. More so, the case of appellant is that of declaration of his parentage but not of the change of entry in NADRA record. The appellant may get such declaration from the Civil Court, by taking both the alleged parents in juxtaposition. As such, neither the marriage registration certificate Exh.P- 1 matters nor the Exh.P3. So far as, birth registration certificate Exh.P2, issued by union council Budha Goraya, Tehsil Daska District Sialkot and judgment & decree of learned civil court, Gujranwala Exh.P-4 are concerned, those also are not of any fruit to the appellant. Again, the appellant in the suit titled as "Muhammad Usman Vs. Union Council, Ladhay Wala, Goraya etc", civil suit No.121/23 dated 10.04.2023, did not implead Zulfiqar Ahmad & Zareena Begum and the NADRA as all of them were necessary to be impleaded and such decree is not effective against them. So, on the basis of such decree the appellant cannot force NADRA to change its record accordingly. As per birth certificate Exh.P-2 birth entry was of 26, May, 2001. The appellant while obtaining his CNIC in the year 2016 (Exh.D-1) did not rely upon such birth entry and his particulars. As such, all the things being

CR No. 8852 of 2025 Dated: 29.10.2026

relied upon the appellant are creation after entry of the appellant in National Data Base. There is no concrete evidence to support the appellant's claim. As per claimed date of birth, even the appellant was not competent/eligible to obtain CNIC or passport as well in the year, 2016. Therefore, there is no cavil to observe that the appellant remained miserably failed to substantiate his claim through cogent and reliable evidence.”

4.The petitioner has referred to evidence available on the record and stressed that the evidence led by the petitioner and documents produced in evidence in support of his claim had not been given due consideration, whereas on the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents states that suit of the petitioner was dismissed due to formal defect of not impleading the proper and necessary parties and even if the evidence produced by the petitioner supported him, which according to the learned counsel for the respondents does not, the suit could still not be decreed due to the defect of non-impleading of the necessary parties and it is also claimed that if at this stage the necessary parties are allowed to be impleaded, the same would require amendment of pleadings, re-recording of evidence and to hold the entire trial afresh, which would not be a proper mode to be adopted at this stage. When confronted the learned counsel for the petitioner states that if the Court reached the conclusion that proper and necessary parties had not been impleaded, it should have either granted permission to the petitioner to implead the necessary parties or in the alternate it could have granted permission to withdraw the suit with permission to file afresh after removing the formal defects, if any.

5.The perusal of the impugned judgments passed by both the courts shows that suit filed by the petitioner has been dismissed due to insufficiency of evidence and non-impleading of necessary parties, with most of the stress placed on non- impleading of necessary/relevant parties. The question that has arisen for determination by this Court is that what would be the effect of not impleading the relevant parties and whether suit should be remanded for the said purpose or should permission be granted for filing the suit afresh by removing the formal defects in the suit, if any.

6.The expression “formal defect” with reference to Order XXIII Rule 1 of CPC came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Muhammad Ashraf and others versus Muhammad Khan and others (2025 SCMR 1066), and was explained as “formal defect” could be misdescription of parties, incorrect valuation, procedural

CR No. 8852 of 2025 Dated: 29.10.2026

errors or technical defects, which did not affect merits of the case and if such defects went to the root of the case, the same could not be considered as formal defects.

7.Previously the Supreme Court of Pakistan in case reported as Muhammad Yousaf and others vs. Nazeer Ahmad Khan (deceased) through LRs and others (2021 SCMR 1775) observed that a formal defect means any kind of defect that has no impact on the merits of the case. The Court further observed that a defect that is material and substantial, going to the roots of the case, would not amount to “formal defect”.

8.The question that would next arise would be that whether the defect in the suit of non-impleading of necessary parties could be removed by amendment of pleadings without permitting the petitioner to file the suit afresh. It is settled proposition of law that a suit cannot be dismissed merely because necessary parties have not been impleaded and the Court should itself allow the impleadment of necessary parties for just decision of the suit instead of dismissing the same on technical grounds. Reference in this behalf may be made to Order I Rule 9 CPC relating to misjoinder and nonjoinder of parties which provides that no suit shall be defeated by reason of misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties and the Court may in every suit deal with the matter in controversy as regards the rights and interest of parties actually before it and in terms of Order I Rule 13 all objections as to nonjoinder or misjoinders of the parties are to be taken at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement unless the ground of objection has subsequently arisen and any such objection not so taken shall be deemed to have been waived. Reliance may be placed on Muhammad Arif & others vs. District & Sessions Judge, Sialkot & others (2011 SCMR 1591) and Mst. Jannat Bibi vs. Sarsa Khan (2011 SCMR 1460). In such eventuality where necessary parties were not impleaded, Court is empowered either to allow the said party to be impleaded and if at any stage such impleadment would be a hindrance in further progress of suit may allow the party to withdraw the suit with permission to file a fresh on the basis of same cause of action. Reliance may be placed on the judgment reported as Sh. Shajar Hussain vs. Haji Abdul Majeed and others (2006 SCMR 913), wherein a suit filed without impleading necessary parties was allowed to be withdrawn with permission to file a fresh on the same cause of action in accordance with law. In judgment reported as Pehlwan & others vs. Haji Muhammad Murad and others (2005 SCMR 1405), it has been held that withdrawal of suit with

CR No. 8852 of 2025 Dated: 29.10.2026

permission to institute another one is not restricted only to the cases of formal defect and scope of Order XXI Rule 1 CPC is wide enough to empower a Court to grant such permission on some other sufficient grounds and permission to withdraw a civil suit for filing a fresh one can be granted by the appellate and revisional court at any stage of the proceedings. In Abdul Hamid and another vs. Dilawar Hussain alias Bhalli and others (2007 SCMR 945), a person in terms of Order VII Rule 13 CPC can file a suit afresh on same cause of action where plaint of his earlier suit has been rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. In the judgment reported as Province of Sindh vs. Raheem and others (2003 SCMR 1210), it is observed that a person could be allowed permission to withdraw the suit with permission to file afresh one, if the other side has no objection to the same and in Muhammad Yar (deceased) through his LRs and others vs. Muhammad Amin (deceased) through his LRs and others (2013 SCMR 464), it has been held that where while allowing a party to withdraw the suit permission to file afresh was not declined in express and clear words, it should be implied, considered and deemed that the Court had found it to be a fit case for granting permission to applicant/plaintiff to file a fresh suit, because otherwise prejudice would be caused to him as he would have to face the bar provided under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC. However, both the parties in unison state that as in terms of the pleadings having been filed without impleading necessary parties, if permission to implead them is granted at this stage, for said purpose necessary changes will also have to be made in pleadings of the parties, fresh issues would be framed, parties would have to lead evidence afresh in terms of issues framed by considering pleadings of all the parties which may even amount to discarding the previous evidence available on the record, hence, no useful purpose would be served by remanding the matter for the said purpose. Consequently, the petitioner at this stage prays that he may be allowed to withdraw the suit with permission to file afresh on the basis of same cause of action.

9.In view thereof, the alternate procedure available before this Court for reaching just conclusion of the matter would be to allow the petitioner to withdraw the suit and file afresh one on the basis of same cause of action by impleading necessary parties referred to in the judgments passed by the courts below. When confronted, both the sides have no objection to the said course of action. However, they state that as matter has been pending for quite some time, therefore, the trial court be directed to conclude the trial of the suit, if and when filed, expeditiously.

CR No. 8852 of 2025 Dated: 29.10.2026

10.For what has been discussed above, the petitioner is allowed to withdraw the suit for declaration, out of which the instant revision petition has arisen, with permission to file afresh suit on the basis of same cause of action, which if filed, shall be decided on its own merits in accordance with law without being influenced by the findings recorded in the judgments and decrees impugned herein.

11.This petition is accordingly disposed of.

(MUZAMIL AKHTAR SHABIR)

JUDGE

Naveed *

APPROVED FOR REPORTING