The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for cogent and reliable evidence to prove the contents of documents such as birth certificates and family registers, as well as the need for corroboration of entries made in official records.

JUDGMENT

Vivek Singh Thakur, J. —Appellant (here-in-after referred to as ''plaintiff'') filed a suit for declaration that his date of birth was 01.04.1953 and for direction to respondents (hereinafter referred to as ''defendants'') to record the same accordingly in his Service Book.

2. The suit was contested by defendants on the ground that at the time of joining in B.B.M.B. on 01.03.1987 as daily wage Beldar, the plaintiff had produced BCB Discharge Certificate in which his date of birth was recorded as 20.07.1945 and accordingly in Service Book/Record maintained by B.B.M.B. date of birth of plaintiff was recorded as 20.07.1945 and admitting the same to be correct, he had affixed his finger and thumb impressions on his Service Book. The suit was also opposed on the ground of delay and laches, stating that under Rule 2.5 of Punjab Civil Services Rules, correction in date of birth was required to be made within two years from the date of entry in Service record.

3. Plea of defendants was rejected by trial Court for defendants had not produced record, pleaded in their written statement, basis for recording date of birth of plaintiff in Service Book. It was held that plaintiff was an illiterate person and his date of birth as 01.04.1953 was corroborated by two certificates Ex.P-2 and Ex. P-3 issued by concerned Gram Panchayat and plaintiff was appointed on regular basis in the month of July, 2001 and notice dated 20.01.2003 (Ex.P-1) was issued for correction of date of birth within two years of regularization as required under Punjab Civil Services Rules. It was further held that on failure of defendants to discharge their duty, plaintiff had no option except to approach Civil Court for redressal of his grievance.

4. Suit was decreed declaring that correct date of birth of plaintiff was 01.04.1953 instead of 20.01.1945 with further direction to defendants to correct the date of birth of the plaintiff in Service Book accordingly.

5. Being aggrieved by judgment of the trial Court, defendants preferred appeal.

6. Plaintiff placed on record copies of extract Register of Birth of Patwar Circle, Mahadev and translation thereof is Ex. PX and Ex.PY, copy of application dated 26.03.1998 submitted for correction of date of birth Ex. PZ. Defendants also placed on record certified copy of Service Book of plaintiff Ex. DW-2/A, Discharge Certificate DW-2/B, Service particulars DW-2/C, Service Record in Field Office Ex. DW-2/D, declaration and Nomination Form Ex. DW-2/E, application for Provident Fund Ex. DW-2/F and Medical Fitness Certificate Ex.DW-2/G in rebuttal by examining Mr. Narinder Kumar Sharma, Superintendent, B.B.M.B. as DW-2.

7. After considering evidence led by parties before trial Court as well as additional evidence placed on record during pendency of the appeal before him, District Judge allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. Present appeal, filed by plaintiff against judgment passed by District Judge, has been admitted on following substantial questions of law: -

i) Whether the learned Lower Appellate Court has mis-interpreted and mis-construed the provisions of Rule 2.5 read with Annexure "A" of the Punjab Civil Service Rules?

ii) Whether the learned Lower Appellate Court has misinterpreted the provisions of Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act?

iii) Whether the learned Lower Appellate Court erred in discarding the date of birth certificate Ex. P-2 and copy of Pariwar Register Ex. P-3 which had been duly proved on record and documents were squarely covered by the provisions of Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act?

8. Counsel for plaintiff placed reliance on Ex. PZ, an application dated 26.03.1998 filed for correction of date of birth by plaintiff in the office of Executive Engineer BRSC and PD Division B.B.M.B. Sunder Nagar and also Ex. P-1 notice dated 20.1.2003. Learned counsel for defendants fairly admitted that application Ex. PZ was filed within two years of appointment as daily wage Beldar and notice Ex. P-1 was ser