1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.840 OF 2008 Premnath s/o Parshuram Pawar, aged: 51 years, Occ: Service, R/o Omerga, Tq. Omerga, District Osmanabad. Appellant Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Osmanabad. 2 The Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran Division, Osmanabad. Respondents Mr.M.A.Kandharkar, advocate for the appellant. Mr.B.V.Wagh, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 0 2 nd February, 2010. P.C.: 1 Suit presented by appellant – plaintiff, being Regular Civil Suit No.17/2005, claiming declaration to the effect that his true date of birth is 09.06.1955 and same has been wrongly recorded as 09.06.1944 in service record came to be dismissed. 2 After considering relevant evidence, trial Court dismissed the suit. The judgment and decree passed by trial Court was subjected to challenge in Regular Civil Appeal No.36/2006, which came to be heard and disposed of by District Judge-1, Omerga, who was pleased to dismiss same in view of order passed on 20.06.2008. 2 3 I have perused judgments delivered by both the Courts below and heard arguments advanced by Mr.Kandharkar, learned Counsel for appellant. In order to substantiate his claim, plaintiff has led evidence of P.W. 2 Head Master of the School. It is brought on record that plaintiff was admitted in school in 3 rd standard on 02.08.1960. The age of securing admission to the school is obviously 5 years and if claim of plaintiff is to be accepted, his contention that he secured admission to 3rd standard at the age of 5 years, does not seem to be probable. A certificate has also been placed on record issued by school authority certifying that the plaintiff has left school on 11.06.1962 while he was studying in 4 th standard, which records his date of birth as 09.06.1955. It is also equally unacceptable that at the age of 7 years, plaintiff would have completed his 4 th standard studies. Plaintiff has failed to place on record his S.S.C. Certificate which records date of birth. Considering the evidence led by plaintiff, trial Court took a view that the date of birth recorded as 09.06.1944 in the service record appears to be probable. The plaintiff has already retired from service on 30.06.2004. The concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below, on the basis of appreciation of evidence placed on record, need not be interfered with while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. 4 Appeal, therefore, stands dismissed summarily. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/sa84008