ms»Si A lan+ Appeiiant lalntiff ni-s n OF CHHATTI^ iingie Bsnch : Hon'bie Shri Diiip Raosaheb Deshmukh, •J. LecondAppeal No.256 of 2007 versus Murarai LaL S/o Mahangu Lal, aged about 48 years, R/o Khongapani, Police Station & Tahsii - IVSanendragarh, Distt. Korea(C.G.) South Eastern Coalfieids Ltd., ]h the Chief General Manager, Hasdeo Area, South Jhagrakhand, Tahsil Manendragarh, Distt. Korea CC.G,' 2. The Mines Manager, South Eastern Coaifields Ltd., West Jhagrakhand Coliiery, Police Station and Tahsil Manendragarh, Distt. Korea (C.G.) iecpnd Apjseal under Section 100 of the Code of Clvil Procedure Present: . Shri N.Naha Roy, counssl forthe appeltant. o O! S^A^ -I- ftl {Passed on thi Heard on admission, (2) !n .this second appeai, the unsuccsssful appeiiant/plaintiff is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 26-04-2007 passed in Glvil Appea! No.37-A/2007 by the Additional District Judgs (F.T.C.), Manendragarh, District Korea, afirming tbe judgmentand decree dated 27-08-2004 passed in Civil Suit No.22-A/2003 by the Civil Judge C'aSs- li, Manendragarh, District Korea, wherebythe suitwas dismissed. (3) !t is not disputed in this appeal that the appeIlanVpiaintiff did not mentlon his date of birth in the affidavif which he had submitted before ^. fhe headmaster prior fo issuance of the schooi ieaving certificate Ex.P-1. !t is ateo not disputed that the appeiSanVplaintiff had appeared before the age determination committee in the year 1990. but neither raised any objection relating to correction of his date of birth from 01- 04-1940 to 01-07-1944 nor urged that his correct date of birth is 07-08- 1954. it is also not disputed that ths school ieaving certificate on the basis of which the envy reiating fo date of birth of the appe!!ant''plaintiff being 07-08-1954 was made in Ex.P-1 was not produced in the Courts beiow. (4) Shri N.Naha Roy, tearned counsel for ths appellant/plaintiff piaced reiiance on S.C.Verma vs. Union of SndSa and another, 2001 (2) MPLJ 155, Kashmir Singh vs. Hamsm Singh and another, AiR 1008 SC 1749 and Sinha vs. State of Bihar and another, A!R 1S91 SC 1377. (5) Having considered the submissions of Isarned counse! for the appellant/piaintiff, ! 'nave perused the record. in view of the facts admitted in this appeal and mentioned in paragraph 3 supra, both the Courts beiow have, on proper apprecration of evidence, oral as weil as documentary, recorded a finding that the school leaving csrtificate Ex.P-1 is a suspicious document.and on this basis both the Courts beiow have declined to grant reliefto.the appeIianVpiaintiff. The finding recorded by both the Courts below |s a finding offact and no substantia! /.' question of law arises for determination ofthis appeal. (S) The case law cited by iearned counsel for the appellant is distinguishabie and does appiy to the present case. The original schoo! ieaving certlficate of Ciass-V, which formed the basls for the entry in Ex.P-1 was not produced. The appeilant did not raise any objection 3- 'oefore the age deterrnination committee regarding his correct date of birth being 07-08-1954. The lower appeilate Court while rejecting the evidence in relation to Ex.P-1 rightiy adopted the reasoning that had the date of birth of the appellant been 07-08-1954, he would have been less than 18 years of age on the date of his appointment and therefore, couid not have been legaliy appointed on that age. (7) Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. SdJ- DUip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge ^opgj e_ r1