JUDGMENT: Second defendant in O.S No.13752 of 1996, on the file of the V Assistant City civil Judge, Madras, is the appellant herein.

2. Suit filed by plaintiff is for the following reliefs:

“....to pass a decree

(a) declaring that the correct date of birth of the plaintiff is 13.7.1941;

(b) granting a mandatory injunction directing the defendants 1 and 2 to amend the date of birth of plaintiff as 13.7.1941 in the records maintained by the 1st defendant in the secondary school leaving certificate and also on the service register of the plaintiff maintained by the 2nd defendant respectively;

(c) to direct the defendants to pay the costs; and

(d) to pass such or other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

3. Material averments which necessitated the filing of the suit could be summarised thus: It is the case of the plaintiff that he was born on 13.7.1941 at Arakonam, North Arcot Ambedkar District, and both of his parents are now no more. He was a student of St.Andrew’s High School, Arakonam, and did his graduation in Loyola College Madras. It is further said that it was his paternal uncle’s son S.Gopannah Naidu, Palanipet, Arakonam, who admitted him into the school where he has given his date of birth as 16.2.1940, which has been carried over in all the school records and also in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate. After completion of his education, he joined the services of the State Bank of India at Kancheepuram, and at present he is working as Deputy Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Region 3, Madras. The plaintiff could not detect the mistake in the date of birth at the earliest point of time since the plaintiff had misplaced his Horoscope and could found the same only in the January, 1993. Under the above circumstances, plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of the correct date of birth under SR.No.52817 of 1993. The plaintiff was returned with a direction that the birth certificate issued by the Municipality should be produced. In those circumstances, as per legal advice, he searched for the extract of birth certificate, and with great difficulty, he was able to get the certificate only in 1996, a few days before the institution of the suit. According to the plaintiff, he could not take appropriate and immediate action for the correction of the date of birth as he came to know about the same only after ascertaining the date of birth by getting a certified copy of the birth extract. It is further said that in the event of date of birth of the plaintiff is being corrected, no one will be prejudiced as his continuation of the service will not affect anybody’s promotional opportunities as the plaintiff voluntarily declined to accept all the promotions already offered to him and continued to be only a Deputy Manager, even though as on date he is eligible to hold a higher post. Therefore, because of the correction of the date of birth, no officers below the plaintiff in seniority waiting for promotion will be affected. On the other hand, a great injustice would be caused to plaintiff if the date of birth is not corrected. In the cause of action paragraph, plaintiff has said that the cause of action for the suit arose at Madras where the plaintiff is permanently residing and in the first week of January, 1993 when plaintiff traced out his original horoscope and on 6.2.1993 when plaintiff issued notice to first defendant under Sec.80, C.P.C., and on 27.3.1996 when the birth extract had been obtained from Arakonam Municipality. It is on the above grounds, the suit was filed for the reliefs stated above.

4. In the written statement filed by second defendant/ Chief General Manager of the State Bank of India, he has contended that the suit is barred by limitation, and it is liable to be dismissed on that ground itself. According to second defendant, the date of birth as furnished by the plaintiff has been accepted and entered in his service record. The State Bank of India has issued

Click Here to Read the rest of this document