THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.881 OF 2011 Date:30.09.2011 Between: Pasala Nageswara Rao .. Appellant And The Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills, Rajahmundry, represented by its Executive Vice President, Operations, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.881 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The appellant is the plaintiff. At the relevant time, he was an employee of Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills - the sole defendant (respondent herein). When the appellant joined the respondent as an unskilled worker, his Date of Birth (DoB) was recorded as 14.07.1949. Alleging that his actual DoB is 13.01.1953, he raised a dispute in 1993. The Labour Court advised the appellant to go to civil Court. He then filed O.S.No.731 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry for declaration that his DOB is 13.01.1953 and for a consequential mandatory injunction for correcting his DoB. The suit was opposed by the defendant inter alia on the ground that it is barred by limitation. The trial Court framed three issues. During the trial, the appellant deposed as PW.1, besides examining two witnesses and marked ten documents. There was no evidence on behalf of the defendant. On the question of limitation, the trial Court relied on Life Insurance Corporation of India v S.M.Margasahayam[1], J.K. Board of School Education v Janak Singh[2] and Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department v R.Kirubakaram[3] wherein it was held that when the suit is barred by limitation the plaintiff is not entitled for a decree. The finding was upheld by the first appellate Court in A.S.No.251 of 2006. In this appeal, the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the suit was filed immediately after coming to know about the anomaly regarding DoB and both the Courts below wrongly assumed that by the year 1993 itself, the plaintiff was aware of the DoB. The submission cannot be accepted. There is no dispute that in 1993, the plaintiff raised a dispute regarding DoB and the Labour Court relegated him to civil Court in 1995. Therefore, the suit for declaration ought to have been filed within three years thereafter, but the suit was filed in 2005 i.e., beyond three years. The Courts below, therefore, correctly applied the law. There is no reason to interfere with the well considered judgment of the first appellate Court. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 30.09.2011 KH [1] 1998 LAB I.C. 2343 (Mad) : (1998) 2 LN 281 (Mad) [2] 1999 LAB I.C. 2729 [3] AIR 1993 SC 2647