IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2382 of 2006 Date of Decision : July 07, 2008 Ashwani Sharma ....Appellant Versus State of Haryana and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. K.K.Goyal, Advocate for the appellant. T.P.S. MANN, J. The appellant had filed a suit for declaration that his correct date of birth was 3.12.1960 instead of 16.9.1957. He also sought mandatory injunction for directing the respondents to make correction of his date of birth in service record, accordingly. The suit was dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula on 15.9.2005. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant filed an appeal. During the pendency of the same, the appellant also filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. for additional evidence to produce birth entries of his brothers and sister. Vide impugned order dated 25.1.2006, learned District Judge, Panchkula dismissed the application under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. by holding that it was without any merit. The appeal was Regular Second Appeal No. 2382 of 2006 also dismissed. The appellant has, thereafter, filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure besides filing an application, C.M. No. 5687-C of 2006, under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C., wherein he has sought permission of this Court once again to produce additional evidence regarding birth entries of his brothers and sister. The case of the appellant as set up by him in the plaint was that he was appointed as Naib Tehsildar during June, 1984. On 9.2.2000, he was promoted as Tehsildar. He was born on 3.12.1960 at Railway Colony, Ambala Cantt. His date of birth was recorded in the office of Sub Registrar, Births and Deaths (Cantonment Board), Ambala Cantt. vide entry No. 2057 dated 21.12.1960. However, in the school records, his date of birth was wrongly recorded as 16.9.1957. All the time he remained under an impression that his date of birth mentioned in the school records was correct. However, in June 2002, at the time when he separated from Joint Hindu Family and family assets were partitioned, he was able to locate his horoscope from the vault of his father from which he came to know that his exact date of birth was 3.12.1960. He then obtained certified copy of his birth certificate from the office of Sub Registrar on 15.1.2003 showing his above stated date of birth. Accordingly, he requested his appointing authorities to change his date of birth in the service record, but his request was filed on 7.4.2003 on the ground that vide notification dated 13.8.2001, the same could be -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 2382 of 2006 corrected only within a period of two years from the date of entry into service. Respondents opposed the suit on the ground that as per the official record of the appellant, his date of birth was 16.9.1957. The copy of the birth certificate submitted by him did not contain the name of his mother nor also the name of the child so born. The appellant joined the service on the basis of date of birth as recorded in his matriculation certificate and school record. If there was any mistake in the date of birth in the school record he could have detected it much earlier and even before joining the service. He had approached the authorities at a belated stage and that too on the basis of vague birth certificate. His date of birth could also not be corrected on the basis of notification dated 13.8.2001. The order passed on 7.4.2003 was neither illegal nor violative of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, dismissal of the suit was prayed for. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that his application for producing additional evidence regarding date of births of brothers and sister of the appellant be allowed. According to him, he had no knowledge of the entries of date of births of his brothers and sister earlier as they were residing separately since long. He has placed on record their matriculation/middle standard examination certificates, which show their respective dates of births. -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 2382 of 2006 A perusal of the certificates Annexures A2 and A3 pertaining to brother and sister of the appellant would show that they were issued in May, 1978 and May, 1982 respectively. It is the case of the appellant himself that he separated from Joint Hindu Family in June, 2002. From year 1982 to year 2002, he was very well part of Joint Hindu Family which consisted of his brother Anil Kumar and sister Manju Bala, besides others. Under these circumstances it cannot be said that he had no knowledge of the date of births of his said brother and sister and, therefore, he could not produce these certificates earlier. As regards Annexure A1, which is issued by Sub Registrar, Births and Deaths (Cantonment Board), Ambala Cantt., a male issue was born on 13.8.1958. The name of male issue does not figure anywhere. Father’s name is mentioned as Lachman. However, the name of the mother of the child is also not mentioned therein. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that certificate Annexure A1 relates to Ashok Kumar, another brother of the appellant. Moreover, aforementioned certificates were also sought to be brought on record by the appellant as additional evidence when his appeal was pending before the learned first appellate Court. The said application was dismissed on the ground that the appellant was trying to fill lacuna in his case. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I find that the application for additional evidence filed by the appellant cannot be -4- Regular Second Appeal No. 2382 of 2006 allowed at this stage. The same is, therefore, dismissed. The main document relied upon by the appellant in support of his case is horoscope Ex.PA. The same was said to have been prepared by Pt. Ram Sharan, though his son PW4-Jagdamba Parsad appeared before the learned trial Court and proved the same. On March 24, 2008, records of the case were requisitioned. The records have been received. The records contain horoscope Ex.PA. A perusal of the same would show that this document could not be in existence in the year 1960, in which year the appellant claimed to have been born and his date of birth mentioned therein as 3.12.1960. On the other hand, this document appears to have been prepared sometime before 14.5.2003, i.e. the date of institution of the suit. By no stretch of imagination, it can be stated that this document was prepared more than ten years back. It was on this ground that the learned lower Courts below held that the horoscope Ex.PA was not an old document but a recently prepared one. Other piece of evidence brought forth by the appellant in support of his case was birth certificate Ex. PB issued by Sub Registrar, Births and Deaths, Cantonment Board, Ambala Cantt. The same also did not contain the name of the child or name of mother of the child. It only mentioned the name of the father of the child as Lachman, besides, the date of birth of the child as 3.12.1960. Learned courts below have -5- Regular Second Appeal No. 2382 of 2006 rightly ruled out the said document from consideration because of the aforementioned facts. The concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the learned lower Courts are based on proper appreciation of the evidence. These findings cannot be disturbed in a second appeal. The substantial questions of law, as claimed by the appellant, do not arise for consideration. The appeal is without any merit and, therefore, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) July 07, 2008 JUDGE satish Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO -6-