CR NO.6477 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR NO.6477 of 2011 Date of decision:21.10.2011 Baldev Singh ...Petitioner Versus General Public & another ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Ajay Kumar Kansal, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 20.8.2011, Annexure P-5, whereby the execution petition moved by the petitioner was dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. From the perusal of the case file, it emerges that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration against the general public. However, the said suit was not contested by the general public. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 15.1.2007 decreed the suit of the plaintiff/petitioner to the effect that his correct date of birth is declared to be 25.3.1949 and not 25.3.1947. Accordingly, the petitioner moved an application through Advocate, before the Registrar of Panjab University, Chandigarh for necessary correction in its record. However, the University refused to do the same as the decree passed by the court is declaratory decree. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an execution petition, which was also dismissed by the learned executing Court holding that in the suit the CR NO.6477 of 2011 2 objector i.e. Registrar, Panjab University is not a party and therefore, the decree passed by the learned trial Court cannot be executed against objector. The Registrar, Panjab University, Chandigarh was not arrayed as defendant in the main suit for the reasons best known to the petitioner. No opportunity of hearing was given to the Registrar before passing the declaratory decree. So, this declaratory decree is not binding on the respondent No.2. The suit was filed after 59 years for correction of date of birth, and the ambiguous decree is unexecutable against the Registrar. Besides this, there is no direction to the Registrar of the University for making rectification in the birth entries of decree-holder/petitioner. In the fact situation, this Court feels that there is no ambiguity in the order of executing order and therefore, no interference is called for. In view of the above, the present revision petition is dismissed. 21.10.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) Mks JUDGE