IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 01.12.2022 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI C.R.P.No.3078 of 2017 and CMP.Nos.2088, 3199 of 2018 and 14410 of 2017 The District Collector, Salem. ... Petitioner Versus A.Chinnasamy ... Respondent PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC, praying to the set aside the fair judgment and decreetal order dated 28.04.2017 passed in R.E.A.No.127 of 2014 in R.E.P.No.51 of 2008 in OS.No.458 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Attur.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Tamilnidhi Additional Government Pleader For Respondent : Ms.R.Apoorva for M/s. Sarvabhauman Associates ORDER The Revision Petitioner herein is the Judgement Debtor in R.E.P.No.51 of 2008 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Attur filed by the respondent/plaintiff herein.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as before the court below.

3. In O.S.No.458 of 1993 on the file of learned District Munsif Court, Attur, the respondent/plaintiff herein has filed a suit to declare his date of birth as 24.05.1960 and to direct the fourth defendant/District Collector, Salem to correct the date of birth in the service register accordingly. The said suit was contested by the fourth defendant/District Collector, Salem denying the date of birth as claimed by the plaintiff.

4. The contention of the plaintiff is that he was born on 24.05.1960, but, as their parents were illiterate, his date of birth was wrongly given as 13.04.1958. After completion of his studies, the plaintiff has joined in the Revenue Department on 08.05.1990. He made an application before the District Collector, Salem through Tahsildhar, Attur for change of his date of birth much earlier in the year 1992. As per the Tahsildhar's reply dated 28.04.1992, he made an enquiry much earlier in the year 1991-1992 and he found that the name of the plaintiff's father is Arumugam and accordingly, the name of Arumugam was inserted in the Register and birth certificate was ordered to be given in favour of the plaintiff as per the proceedings in NA.KA.No.5694 of 1992 dated 28.04.1992. Thereafter, he gave a representation to the Special Commissioner to make entry, but the same was refused. Further, the plaintiff applied for alteration of his date of birth within five years from the date of his joining the service. Hence, he filed a suit for declaration and other consequential rights.

5. Aggrieved against the same, fourth defendant/ District Collector, Salem has filed an application contending that as per the school records, his date of birth is 13.04.1958. Further more, he has not given any representation within five years from the date of joining the service and he has not given any application to the Commercial Tax Officer where he has joined, though the allegations found in the plaint are not true. Further more, the Tahsildhar is not conferred with any power to correct the change of date of birth and the alleged proceedings also is not valid. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the suit.

6. Before the trial Court, issues were framed and trial was conducted.

On the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and on the side of the defendant, revenue official/DW1 was examined. The plaintiff has produced the documents Ex.A1 to A3 and on the side of the defendants Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 were produced. Further more, the defendant also raised objection that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction and only the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal alone is empowered to decide the issue with regard to the date of birth.

7. On considering the objections, the trial court has framed nine issues, including the jurisdictional aspect and also considering the evidence and records, the trial Court held that on perusal of the records produced on the side of the plaintiff, it clearly reveals that within five years from the date of his service, he gave an application more particularly within three years to correct his date of birth and the sam