HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:2446 OF 2009 ORDER: This is a revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to revise the order of the Family Court-cum-IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada in I.A.No.735 of 2006 in A.S.No.442 of 2005, dated 16.03.2009. The petitioner-plaintiff filed O.S.No.1915 of 2001 before the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada against the respondents-defendants for declaring his date of birth as 27.10.1947 and for directing them to effect the change of date of birth in their records. The respondents-defendants were set exparte, but the suit was dismissed by the lower Court on merits holding that the plaintiff being an employee of the LIC, he has not made his employer as party to the suit and has not taken any steps to implead it in spite of doubt expressed by the Court with regard to the maintainability of the suit and therefore, no relief can be granted to correct the date of birth in the service records. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-plaintiff carried the matter in appeal. Pending the appeal, he filed I.A.No.735 of 2006 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking permission to add LIC of India, Machilipatnam Division, as 4th respondent-defendant. On dismissal of the I.A., the present revision is filed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that when the correction of date of birth is ordered to be carried out, it is consequential that the employer has to correct the entries in the records and therefore, the 4th respondent is the proper and necessary party in the appeal and the lower appellate Court is not justified in dismissing the I.A. This Court did not find any force in the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner for the simple reason that when the contesting defendants 1 to 3 were set exparte and when it was pointed out by the Court below that the plaintiff being an employee, he had not made the employer as party, it was argued that the plaintiff is not an employee, but he is only an agent and as such, the question of adding LIC of India does not arise. Taking into consideration the stand taken by the petitioner-plaintiff, the trial Court dismissed the suit on merits. Whether the dismissal of the suit is justified or not is a matter to be gone into in the appeal. Once the petitioner himself had taken a stand in the suit that the petitioner-plaintiff is not an employee of LIC of India and it is not a necessary party, the question of adding it in the appeal does not arise. In this view of the matter, I have no hesitation to hold that the order impugned herein does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality warranting interference by this Court and hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ Justice A. Gopal Reddy Date:29th April, 2011 Nn. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:2446 OF 2009 29.4.2011