AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 26.5.2016 passed by learned District Judge,",,,
Chittorgarh (hereinafter referred to as ''the first appellate court'') in Civil Appeal No.16/2016 dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant and,,,
confirming the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2015 passed by learned Additional Senior Civil Judge No.1, Chittorgarh (hereinafter referred to",,,
as ''the trial court'') in Civil Original Suit No.16/2015 decreeing the suit for declaration and mandatory injunction regarding change of date of birth,,,
filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1.,,,
Briefly stated facts of the case are that the plaintiffrespondent No.1, being minor, filed a civil suit through her natural guardian/father before the",,,
Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge No.1, Chittorgarh against the defendants on 16.10.2014 for declaration and mandatory injunction with the",,,
prayer that her suit be decreed and the appellant and relevant schools be directed to record the plaintiff''s correct and actual date of birth as,,,
2.3.1999 in place of 15.10.2000 in her entire educational record with the appellant and relevant schools.,,,
After receiving notice, the appellant and other defendants filed their written statements before the learned Trial Court and denied all the",,,
contentions of plaintiff-respondent No.1.,,,
On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues:- ""VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED""",,,
After hearing learned both the sides and perusing the material available on record, the learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated",,,
16.12.2015 decided all the issues against the defendants and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffrespondent No.1.,,,
Being aggrieved with the said judgment and decree dated 16.12.2015, the appellant-defendant preferred a first appeal before the learned",,,
District Judge, Chittorgarh. The learned District Judge, Chittorgarh after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated",,,
26.5.2016.,,,
Against the judgment and decree dated 26.5.2016 passed by the first appellate court, the appellant has preferred the present second appeal",,,
before this Court. On 01.09.2016 at the time of admission of the appeal this Court determined the following substantial questions of law:-,,,
(1) Whether both the Courts below were justified in decreeing the plaintiff''s suit dehors the statutory provisions of Rule 69.2 of the CBSE,,,
Examination Bye-Laws?,,,
(2) Whether the learned trial Court was justified in applying the provisions of Section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in the present case where the",,,
plaintiff being minor filed the suit for declaration and mandatory injunction in respect of her date of birth through father during her minority so as to,,,
bring the suit within limitation?""",,,
Heard learned counsel for the parties.,,,
Learned counsel for the appellant (defendant No.5) has contended that both the judgments and decrees passed by learned Trial Court as well,,,
as learned First Appellate Court are wholly illegal and without jurisdiction being contrary to law and beyond the facts on record. It is contended,,,
that in view of the evidence adduced and material placed before the trial court, it could not have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff''s daughter",,,
Ms. Mummal''s correct and actual date of birth was 2.3.1999, therefore, the learned Trial Court has committed an error in decreeing the suit in",,,
favour of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 by taking into consideration irrelevant material and the relevant materials available on record were not taken,,,
for consideration.,,,
It is further contended that Rule 69(2) of the CBSE Examination bye-laws as amended vide notification dated 8.4.2011 and as applicable to,,,
the present case in which suit was filed with the prayer for correction in the date of birth and sub-rule (i) thereof specifically states that no change in,,,
the date of birth once recorded in the Board''s records shall be made. However, the correction to correct typographical and other errors to make",,,
the certificate consistent with the school records can be made provided that corrects in the school records should not have been made after the,,,
submission of application form for admission to examination to the Board. It is further contended that sub-rule (iv) of Rule 69.2 specifically reveals,,,
that the application for correction in the date of birth duly forwarded by the Head of School along with documents mentioned in bye-laws 69.2(iii),,,
shall be entertained by the Board only within five years of the date of declaration of result of class X examination. No correction whatsoever shall,,,
be made on application submitted after the said period of five years.,,,
It is further contended that both the courts below have committed an illegality in recording findings while deciding issues No.1 and 2 to the,,,
effect that the plaintiff''s correct and actual date of birth is 2.3.1999 relying on the document Ex.01 Hospital Discharge Ticket and Ex.02 date of,,,
birth certificate. It is contended that the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court on issue No.3 that the suit has been filed within limitation,,,
applying the provisions of Section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is perfectly illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside.",,,
In view of above arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned judgments",,,
and decrees passed by both the courts below may be quashed and set aside.,,,
On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant-",,,
defendant and has supported the impugned judgments and has submitted that there is concurrent finding of both the learned courts below,",,,
therefore, the same cannot be interfered with by this Court in the second appeal. It is also submitted that no error has been committed by learned",,,
first appeal court as well as learned trial court while passing the impugned judgments and decrees as the same have been passed after appreciating,,,
and scrutinizing the material available on record. Therefore, it is prayed that the present second appeal may kindly be dismissed.",,,
I have perused the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court. The findings arrived at by the learned Trial Court is reproduced as under:-,,,
9,CERTIFICATION,69.2,"CHANGES IN BOARD''S
CERTIFICATECHANGE/
CORRECTION IN DATE OF BIRTH
69.2(I) No change in the date of birth once recorded in the Board''s records in respect of
those candidates who have appeared for the secondary/senior school examinations conducted
by the Board shall be made. However, corrections to correct typographical and other errors
to make the certificate consistent with the school records can be made provided that
corrections in the school records should not have been made after the submission of
application form for admission to Examination to the Board.
(iv) The application for correction in date of birth duly forwarded by the Head of school along
with documents mentioned in Byelaws 69.2(iii) shall be entertained by the Board in respect of
those candidates who have taken the examinations conducted by the Board only within two
years of the date of declaration of result of Class X/XII examination, as the case may be. In
case of those candidates who have appeared for the examinations conducted by the Board
both of Secondary and Senior Secondary levels, the period of two years shall be counted
from the date of declaration of result of Secondary School examination. No correction
whatsoever, shall be made on application submitted after the said period of two years.",,"69.2(i) No change in the date of birth once
recorded in the Board''s records shall be made.
However, correction to correct typographical and
other errors to make the certificate consistent
with the school records can be made provided
that corrections in the school records should not
have been made after the submission of
application form for admission to Examination to
the Board.
(iv) The application for correction in date of birth
duly forwarded by the Head of school along with
documents mentioned in Byelaws 69.2 (iii) shall
be entertained by the Board only within five years
of the date of declaration of result. No correction
whatsoever, shall be made on application
submitted after the said period of five years.",
Courts below in the instant appeal. The substantial questions of law framed by this Court vide order dated 01.09.2016 is answered against the,,,
appellant and in favour of the respondent. This Court finds no force in the present Second Appeal filed by the appellant and the same is liable to be,,,
dismissed.,,,
In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed. No costs.",,,