Correction of CNIC

 

                   PLD 2012 LAH 378

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 the cnic ---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.

Cause of Action

                       Cause of Action

                    Order 2 Rule 2 CPC

         

PLD 2023 Lahore 601

    There are three specific terms used in Order II Rule 2 which are required to be interpreted as these shall have bearing on a just decision of this case. These terms are cause of action, claim and relief. 

The expression cause of action has not been defined in the Code although several attempts have been made in the judgments to explain it. Various authorities have referred it to mean that every fact, which if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove to support his right to a judgment by of the court. This definition would generally suffice but it does not necessarily provide a satisfactory answer as to what is the cause of action. This Court shall not make an attempt to define the term cause of action in recognition of the fact that the scope thereof is vague and that it must be applied broadly to carry out the functions of the Code which are designed to achieve convenience and efficiency in trial of the suits. This policy of the Code is indubitably brought forth by Order II Rule 1 according to which all matters in dispute between the parties relating to the same transaction be disposed of in a single suit. Generally looking at the provisions of Orders I & II of the Code would make it evident that when the right recognized by law is violated constituting a legal wrong, a cause of action can be said to have arisen. A fortiori, it is the legally recognized wrong that creates the right to sue. It is axiomatic that facts which do not represent the existence of right in the plaintiff with a corresponding duty in defendant to observe that right and an infringement of that right or duty is no cause of action. In Stone v. Cass, 34 Okla. 5, 124 P. 960, the Court stated that “There can be no cause of action, unless there is a wrong for which redress is afforded. Nor can there be a subject of action, unless there is a right and a wrong done to it. The right might exist for ages, but is not a subject of action until it is infringed upon. The wrong might be continuous, but is not a cause of action, unless relief is afforded.” Cause of action thus comprises material facts (to borrow the term from the Code) constituting the right and its infringement which entitles a person to sue the wrongdoer or anyone liable for it. The logical progression of this rule dictates that a cause of action must include a set of primary or operative facts that represent a legally recognized wrong that creates the right to sue which gives rise to a claim enforceable in court. Each cause of action consists of points the plaintiff must prove, and all these elements must be satisfied before the court can take action. This broad categorization of the rule is in accord with the scheme of the Code.