IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the civil court has jurisdiction to pass a decree directing the correction of date of birth in educational records and service registers, and such decrees are binding on the concerned parties.

ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is directed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order, dated 20.04.2018, passed in E.A.No.11 of 2018 in E.P.No.1 of 2007 in O.S.No.3860 of 1991 by the learned IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record.

3. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the present revision petition are as under:

The respondent herein filed suit in O.S.No.3860 of 1991 before the IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to declare that his date of birth as 18.06.1970, instead of 31.05.1969 and also to declare the proceedings in Rc.No.300/HO/91, dated 18.03.1991 issued by the Director of School Education as void ab initio. The said suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent preferred appeal in A.S.No.465 of 1997 and the IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court partly allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein preferred S.A.No.1079 of 2001 before this Court. The said appeal was dismissed by this Court vide judgment, dated 15.02.2002 confirming the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court. After dismissal of the second appeal, the respondent made representation to the Government for correction of date of birth. But the same was rejected by the Government vide Memo No.17650/SER-IV/2/2003 Education (SER-IV) Department, dated 24.03.2003. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed C.C.No.1074 of 2003 against the petitioners for violation and disobedience of the order in S.A.No.1079 of 2001. However, the said contempt case was dismissed holding that there is no direction to the petitioners in the suit to give effect to declaration of date of birth and to correct the same in his service register and other educational records. As such, there is no violation of the directions or orders passed by the trial Court and accordingly, dismissed the contempt case.

4. Subsequently, the respondent herein filed E.P.No.1 of 2007 against the petitioners for implementation of the decree and judgment in A.S.No.465 of 1997 and S.A.No.1079 of 2001, wherein the learned Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court issued warrant of compliance to the petitioners herein. Wherein, the petitioners filed E.A.11 of 2018 for recalling of warrant issued on 31.10.2017. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court vide order, dated 20.04.2018. Challenging the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

5. Learned Government Pleader vehemently contended that the suit was filed by the respondent only for relief of declaration and not for any further relief and as such, granting of consequential relief of correction of date of birth in the educational records and the service register is not maintainable. He further submits that this Court has closed the contempt case holding that there is no direction to the petitioners in the suit to give effect to declaration of date of birth and to correct the same in service register and other educational records. Therefore, the continuation of the execution proceedings is an error committed by the trial Court and the trial Court has committed error in not recalling the warrant. The order of the trial Court is not sustainable. Therefore, he prays to allow the revision.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the order of the trial Court and would contend that the petitioners cannot ignore the judgment and decree declaring the date of birth of the respondent, which attained finality by this Court in the second appeal. As such, he prays to dismiss the revision. He relied on the judgment of K.Madhadeva Sastry v. Director, Post Graduate Centre, Anantapur, AIR 1982 Andhra Pradesh 176.

7. I have gone through the entire evidence on record and also the judgment of this Court in S.A.No.1079 of 2001. Undisputedly, the suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff in O.S.No.3860 of