IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 114 RSA-3212-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:15.09.2025 Board of High School and Intermediate Educa3on …..Appellant Vs. Bhar3 and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Bhupender Singh, Advocate for the appellant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) CM-11529-C-2025 : 1. This is an applicaon under Secon 5 of the Limitaon Act seeking condonaon of delay of 515 days in filing the appeal. 2. The plainffs (respondents herein) had filed a suit for declaraon and mandatory injuncon, which was decreed by the trial Court on 01.02.2019. The appeal preferred by the defendant (appellant herein) was dismissed by the learned Addional District Judge on 09.01.2024. 3. The present appeal has been instuted on 12.09.2025. In the applicaon, it has been pleaded that the judgment and decree were passed on 04.04.2025; that the cerfied copy was applied for on 05.04.2025 and delivered on 09.04.2025; and that the case was therea4er sent for legal opinion, which, due to administrave exigencies, occasioned the delay. 4. On perusal of the record, it is evident that the aforesaid averments are factually incorrect. The judgment of the first Appellate Court was NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.09.16 13:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3212-2025 (O&M) -2- passed on 09.01.2024 and not on 04.04.2025. The cerfied copy was applied for on 07.09.2024 and delivered on 13.09.2024, and not on the dates menoned in the applicaon. It is apparent that the applicaon has been dra4ed mechanically, without verificaon of the correct facts. 5. Apart from incorrect facts, no sufficient cause has been shown for condoning the delay of 515 days. A vague plea of “administrave exigencies” cannot explain such prolonged inacon, parcularly when the appellant-Board is represented by a panel of advocates. The applicaon does not disclose when the file was sent for opinion, to whom it was marked, or when it was returned for acon. Such lethargy cannot be condoned. 6. In view thereof, this Court finds no ground to condone the delay. The applicaon is accordingly dismissed. Main Appeal : 7. Though the appeal is liable to be dismissed as barred by limitaon, even on merits no case is made out. The respondents-plainffs had sought declaraon and mandatory injuncon for correcon of their date of birth and parentage in the school cerficates. The trial Court decreed the suit. The first Appellate Court re-appreciated the evidence and affirmed the findings of the trial Court. 8. The Courts below rightly relied on the principle that entries in the birth cerficate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths have primacy over school records, as held in Resham Singh v. Union of India and Another, 2008 (1) RCR (Civil) 131. 9. The case of plainffs also finds support from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Jigya Yadav (Minor) v. CBSE and Others, (2021) 7 SCC 535. 10.As such, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the concurrent NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.09.16 13:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3212-2025 (O&M) -3- findings of fact. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be dismissed not only on merits but also as being barred by limitaon. Ordered accordingly. All pending miscellaneous applicaons, if any, also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE September 15, 2025 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.09.16 13:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document