111

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

RSA-4034-2019(O&M)

Date of Decision : 03.03.2023

Central Board of Secondary Education

…Appellant

versus

Manoj and another

….Respondents

Coram :

Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.S. Walia

Present :

Mr. Kannan Malik, Advocate for the appellant.

Respondents ex parte vide order dated 28.02.2023.

***

B.S. Walia, J. (Oral)

CM-11055-C-2019

For the reasons as are mentioned in the application, the same

is allowed. Delay of 46 days in refiling of the appeal is condoned, subject

to all just exceptions.

RSA-4034-2019

1.

Challenge in the instant regular second appeal is to the

judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Rohtak,

dated 03.04.2019, dismissing Civil Appeal No.6 of 2019 while upholding

the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2018, passed by the learned Civil

Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak, decreeing the suit of respondent

No.1/plaintiff to the effect that the actual date of birth of respondent

No.1/plaintiff is 07.07.1999 and directing the appellant/defendant No.1 to

correct the actual date of birth of the plaintiff in its record within two

months from the date of judgment, on moving of application by

respondent No.1/plaintiff.

2.

Learned counsel contends that on the basis of pleadings, the

RAJESH KUMAR

2023.07.12 09:55

I attest to the accuracy of

this order./judgment

RSA-4034-2019(O&M)

2

2023:PHHC:086291

following issues were framed:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration

and mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?

OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the

present suit? OPD

4. Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain

and try the present suit? OPD

5. Whether the present suit is bad for non-joinder and

misjoinder of necessary parties? OPD

6. Whether the present suit is time barred? OPD

7. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean

hands and has suppressed material facts? OPD

8. Relief.

3.

Thereafter, on the basis of pleadings, evidence and

submissions, learned trial Court decided issue No.1 in favour of

respondent No.1/plaintiff and against the appellant/defendant No.1 while

issue Nos.2 to 7 were also decided in favour of respondent No.1/plaintiff

and against the appellant/respondent No.1, resultantly, the civil suit filed

by respondent No. 1 / plaintiff was decreed.

4.

Sole argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that as

noticed in paragraph No.11 of the judgment and decree of the learned

trial Court, entry of date of birth of respondent No.1/plaintiff was made

on the basis of information furnished by the family members of

respondent No.1/plaintiff while admitting him in the school and as per

the forms filled up by respondent No.1/plaintiff at the time of

examination the appellant was bound by the rules to record the date of

birth of a candidate as recorded in the school record. Learned Counsel

contends that respondent No.1/plaintiff had relied upon the following

RAJESH KUMAR

2023.07.12 09:55

I attest to the accuracy of

this order./judgment

RSA-4034-2019(O&M)

3

2023:PHHC:086291

documentary evidence:-

Ex. PW1/B, Copy of Senior School Certificate Examination,

2017 of Manoj

Ex. PW1/C, Copy of Adhaar Card

Ex. PW1/D, Copy of Ration Card

Ex. PW1/E, Birth Certificate

Ex. PW2/A, Copy of pages of Date & Birth Register

while the appellant tendered Ex.D1 i.e. examination Bye-

Laws and closed evidence.

5.

Learned Counsel contends that despite it being the stand of

the appellant as based on Bye-Laws 69.2 of the Examination Bye-Laws

that entry of date of birth made in the Board's records was not open to

change except to correct typographical and other errors to make the

certificate consistent with the school records and the correction in the

date of birth