Pursuant to the notice of motion ordered on 212. 1994 in this second appeal, I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff- appellant as well as learned counsel for the defendant- respondent. The plaintiff has failed in both the courts below.

2. The suit is for declaring the correct date of birth of the plaintiff as 111. 1937 in her

S.S.L.C. Book and for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to effect change of plaintiff’s date of birth as 111. 1937 instead of 24. 1937.

3. The suit has been concurrently dismissed by both the courts below. Though learned counsel for the appellant argues that pursuant to Ex.A.3, the horoscope of the plaintiff, Ex.A-1, the birth certificate issued by the municipal authority relating to the plaintiff, the relevant Government orders and the oral evidence the courts below ought to have decreed the suit as prayed for, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the suit itself is not maintainable under Sec.34 of the Specific Relief Act since the employer of the plaintiff, viz,, Meenakshi College, in which the plaintiff is a lecturer, has not been impleaded in the suit and there is no cause of action against the defendant- Director