JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J.

1. Background: Plaintiff of the case has approached this Court against reversal, in as much as his suit for correction of date of birth was decreed by the trial Court on 02.04.2019, but the appeal filed by the Central Board of Secondary Education ['CBSE']-defendant No.2 (respondent No.l herein), was accepted by the First Appellate Court on 15.03.2021 and the suit was dismissed being barred by limitation.

2. In order to avoid confusion, the parties shall be referred as per their status before the trial Court.

3. Plaintiff's Case: According to Plaintiff, his actual date of birth is 11.12.1996 as recorded in his Birth Certificate. He passed 10th class from defendant No.l -Raunaq Public School, Ganaur (respondent No.2 herein) and came to know that his date of birth in the said 10th Class Certificate issued by defendant No.2, i.e. Central Board of Secondary Education (respondent No.l herein) is recorded as 11.12.1994 instead of 11.12.1996. He made several requests to the defendants to make the necessary correction regarding his date of birth in the 10th Class Certificate, but defendants did not pay any heed, compelling him to file the suit seeking necessary declaration and mandatory injunction

4. Stand of Defendants: The defendant N: 2 - CBSE was proceeded ex parte before the trial Court. Defendant No.1 - school took the stand that date of birth as 11.12.1994 was recorded in the school record based upon the information supplied by the parents of the plaintiff at the time of his admission as they had submitted a Transfer Certificate of the previous school, in which the date of birth of plaintiff was mentioned as 11.12.1994.

5. Trial Court Findings: The trial Court found that as per the Birth Certificate (Ex.P1) issued by the Registrar, Birth and Death, the date of birth was 11.12.1996. By relying upon 'Resham Singh V. Union of India and another', 2009 (1) Civil Court Cases 653 (P&H) (DB), it was held that in case of a contradiction between date of birth certificate and the education record, primacy has to be accorded to the Birth Certificate and as such, the trial Court decreed the suit for declaration and mandatory injunction on 02.04.2019.

6. Appellate Court Findings: However, in the appeal filed by the CBSE, the Appellate Court took the view that plaintiff had approached the Court beyond three years after date of attaining maturity and as such, the suit was barred by limitation. The Appellate Court relied upon 'Ambika Kaul v. CBSE & Ors.' 2015(3) SCT 250 (P&H). As such, accepting the appeal of the CBSE, the Appellate Court dismissed the suit on 15.03.2021.

7. Contentions of appellant-plaintiff: Assailing the aforesaid reversal of findings, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff that the actual date of birth of the plaintiff being 11.12.1996 as per the Birth Certificate issued by a public authority, primacy has to be attached to it and that plaintiff cannot be non-suited on the ground of a limitation, as getting his date of birth corrected is his fundamental right. Learned counsel has referred to 'Jigya Yadav (Minor) (Through Guardian/Father Hari Singh) v. CBSE (Central Board of Secondary Education) and Ors.', 2021(7) SCC 535 and 'Prema Evelyn Dcruz v. Union of India and others', 2022 SCC OnLine (Delhi) 4095.

8. Contentions of Defendants - respondents: On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent -Board contends that the Appellate Court has rightly held the suit to be barred by limitation and so, there is no scope for interference. Learned counsel has relied upon:

9. This Court has considered submissions of both the sides and has appraised the paper-book.

10. This Court's Analysis:

[Primacy to public documents] - The authenticity of Birth Certificate (Ex.P-1) issued by the Registrar, Birth and Death, has not been assailed by learned counsel for the respondent - Board before this Court. In the said Birth Certificate, date of birth of the plaintiff is mentioned as 11.12.1996. On the o