Judgment :

GOKHALE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal seeks to challenge the order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Regular Second Appeal No.3013/2007 dated 18.9.2010 whereby the learned single judge has confirmed the judgment of the Additional District Judge and that of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, whereby he had granted a decree in favour of the Ist respondent herein.

3. Respondent No.1 joined the office of the Director of Prosecution, Haryana, as an Assistant District Attorney on 2.4.1992. At that time, he got the date of his birth recorded in the service book on the basis of the Matriculation Certificate in which the date was mentioned as 25.3.1962. It is the case of the first respondent that there was a family function in June 2001 where his relatives gathered, and wherein during the discussion he came to know that his date of birth was actually 25.11.1962, and that the one recorded in the matriculation certificate was erroneous.

4. The first respondent made a representation on 2.7.2001 for correction of the date of birth, which was rejected by the communication dated 24.9.2002 from the Superintendent of Jails and the Judicial and Financial Commissioner (who is also the Principal Secretary to the Administration of Judicial Department) addressed to the Director of Prosecution, State of Haryana. The representation was rejected on the basis of Finance Department's Notification dated 13.8.2001, which laid down that no application for correction in date of birth, submitted after two years from entry into service, can be entertained.

5. The first respondent gave a notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the `CPC' for short) on 10.11.2005 and thereafter filed a suit on 16.10.2006 for a declaration that the decision dated 24.9.2002 was bad in law. The second respondent herein viz. Secretary, Board of School Education, Haryana, was joined as second defendant in the suit though he was a proforma-defendant.

6. The Learned Addl. Civil Judge, Senior Division, who decided the suit, being Civil Suit No.18 of 2006 took the view that the appellant was giving a retrospective effect to the Notification dated 13.8.2001 and that was not permissible. The Learned Civil Judge held that the suit was within time and granted a decree that the order dated 24.9.2002 was illegal, null and void and that the date of birth of the first respondent was 25.11.1962.

7. The appellant filed an appeal against this judgment and order to the Court of the Additional District Judge, Karnal being Civil Appeal No.66/2007 which came to be dismissed and so also the Regular Second Appeal No.3013/2007, which was filed against that order. The Learned Single Judge dismissed the second appeal by a short order in view of the concurrence of views of the courts below.

8. Being aggrieved by all these orders, the present appeal by Special Leave has been filed. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the first respondent joined as the Assistant District Attorney on 2.4.1992 and the date of birth given by him on the basis of the matriculation certificate was recorded in his service book. Nine years later, he has sought to correct the date of birth, allegedly on the basis of the discussion at a family function and by pointing out the extracts of births of his brothers and sisters (though in none of them, there is any name of the child). Even after his representation was turned down on 24.9.2002 on the basis of the Government Notification dated 13.8.2001, he took more than three years to serve the notice under Section 80 of the CPC, which was served on 10.11.2005 and the suit was filed almost one year thereafter on 16.10.2006. The appellant submitted that the action on part of the first respondent was belated. It suffers from latches and the suit was also barred by limitation. The Respondent No.1 on the other hand, defended the impugned judgments as correctly rendered.

9. It was submitted on behalf of the appe