CR No.1005 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1005 of 2011 Date of decision: 14.12.2011 Punjab School Education Board, Mohali and another ..Petitioners Versus Amar Singh ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. R.D.Anand, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Govinder Singh Brar, Advocate for the respondent. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. The defendant-petitioners have impugned the order dated 19.11.2010 passed by the trial court through the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Brief facts may be noticed. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration claiming that his date of birth was 18.1.1953 which had been wrongly entered in the service book as 18.1.1951 and also sought mandatory injunction directing the defendant-petitioners to correct the date of birth as 18.1.1953 and also restraining them from superannuating him before reaching the age of superannuation calculated on that basis. The defendant-petitioners filed written statement to the plaint filed by the plaintiff-respondent. It would be 1 CR No.1005 of 2011 expedient to refer to para 2 of the plaint wherein the plaintiff had averred that he was born on 18.1.1953. It reads as under:- “2.That the plaintiff was born on 18.1.1953 at Village Brindpur, Tehsil and District Kapurthala. Copy of birth certificate is attached herewith. The date of birth of the plaintiff was incorrectly recorded in his service book.” 3. The defendant-petitioners besides taking preliminary objection regarding laches in filing the suit at the time of reaching the age of retirement, in reply to para 2 of the plaint on merits, had stated as under:- “2.That the contents of para 2 are denied. The plaintiff at the time of joining the defendant’s office entered his date of birth with his own hand and signature. Copy of relevant record is attached as Annexure D.1.” 4. Thereafter, an application had been filed by the plaintiff- respondent for admission and denial of documents. In written reply to the said application in para 2, it was stated by the defendant- petitioners that date of birth of the plaintiff was 18.1.1953. After noticing that an error had crept in, an application for amendment of the written reply to the said application was filed wherein it was averred that due to typographical mistake, it was typed as 18.1.1953 instead of 18.1.1951. The same was sought to be corrected by way of the said application. The trial court declined the said application vide order impugned herein, which has necessitated the defendant- petitioners to approach this Court through the present revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the main written statement, date of birth being 18.1.1953 was denied as 2 CR No.1005 of 2011 it was stated in para 2 that the plaintiff had correctly entered the date of birth at the time of joining the defendant’s office with his own hand and signatures. In such a situation, the trial court was not right in declining the correction sought by the defendant-petitioners. However, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent, on the other hand, supported the impugned order. 6. After giving thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, I find that there is merit in the revision petition. 7. It is not disputed that date of birth as 18.1.1953 had not been accepted by the petitioner-defendants in the written statement which had been filed. Rather, it was stated that the plaintiff- respondent had himself entered the date of birth in the record in his own hand and signatures as 18.1.1951. The mistake being typographical mistake, the trial court was not justified in declining the application filed by the defendant-petitioners. 8. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.11.2010 passed by the trial court is set aside. December 14, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge 3