RSA No. 2476 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2476 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision 15.7.2011. Smt. Shamma Rani ...... Appellant. versus Board of School Education, Haryana, Bhiwani ...... Respondent. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C.PURI m Present : Mr. Neeraj Malhotra, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Hariom Attri, Advocate for the respondent. K.C.PURI . J. This appeal is directed by plaintiff/appellant against judgment and decree dated 21.3.2009 passed by learned District Judge, Sirsa vide which the appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 3.1.2008 passed by the trial Court was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff was born at Sirsa on 5.7.1954. Her parents had already died. Her parents were illiterate and at the time of admission in the school in Sirsa, they have wrongly or inadvertently mentioned the date of birth of the plaintiff as 5.7.1950 instead of 5.7.1954 RSA No. 2476 of 2009 2 and as such it has been incorporated in the matriculation certificate issued by the defendant wrongly. At present, the plaintiff is married and is working as Principal in DAV School at Gidderbaha and she is near the age of retirement as per date of birth mentioned in the certificate but the authorities of DAV institution have also asked the plaintiff to produce her birth certificate and when she got issued the same from the Municipal Corporation Sirsa, then she came to know about her actual date of birth and about the wrong date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificate and thereafter plaintiff approached and requested the defendant to correct her date of birth in the matriculation certificate but to no effect. Hence the suit. 3. Defendant was summoned through registered post but none had come present on behalf of the defendant. Hence, it was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 4.5.2007. 4. Plaintiff in support of her case has appeared as PW-1 and has also examined Lalit Gupta as PW-2 and thereafter evidence was closed by learned counsel for the plaintiff. 5. The learned trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant dismissed the case of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 3.1.2008. 6. The plaintiff preferred appeal before the learned First Appellate Court, who also dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 21.3.2009. 7. Still feeling dis-satisfied with the aforesaid judgments and decrees, the plaintiff-appellant has preferred the present appeal. RSA No. 2476 of 2009 3 8. The appellant in paragraph No.6 of the grounds of appeal has mentioned that following substantial questions of law have arisen in the present appeal :- (i) Whether the learned courts below have failed in error of law while discussing the ex-parte unrebutted evidence of the plaintiff-appellant-plaintiff ? (ii) Whether the claim of the appellant-plaintiff deserves a success on the ground that she came across the correct date of birth only in the year 2004 and thereafter suit was filed promptly ? (iii) Whether the finding of the learned court below regarding delay are perverse and liable to be set aside ? 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 10. There is concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below that plaintiff has failed to prove that her date of birth is 5.7.1954 and not 5.7.1950 as recorded in the matriculation certificate. It is only at the fag end of her service the claim for change of date of birth has been made. The present suit has been filed only on 3.8.2006 and during her service of 36 years, she has not raised any objection. There is nothing on the file that the trial Court has misread and misinterpreted the evidence on the file. It cannot be said that unrebutted ex-parte evidence can be allowed to prevail upon blindly. This stand taken by the appellant that she came to know about her correct date of birth only in the year 2004, cannot be accepted. The finding of both the Courts below cannot be said to be perverse or against the law. 12. No other point has been urged before me. RSA No. 2476 of 2009 4 13. So, in view of above discussion the substantial questions of law raised for determination mentioned above stand determined against the appellant. 14. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. 15. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE July 15 , 2011 sv