1 2025:CGHC:15931 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 274 of 2020 Smt. K. Uma W/o Shri Lokeshwar Lal Patel Aged About 21 Years R/o Bhanpuri, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant/Plaintiff versus Public In General ... Respondent/Defendant For Appellant : Mr. Shikar Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : ………….. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judgment on Board 04.4.2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2019 (Annexure-A/1) passed by Second Additional District Judge, Raipur (CG) in Civil Appeal No.88A/2019, upholding the judgment and decree dated 03.5.2019 passed by 9th Civil Judge Class-II, Raipur (CG) in Civil Suit No.144A/2018, whereby civil suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for declaration of change of plaintiff’s name from ‘Khambampati Umesh Rao’ to ‘K. Uma’, has been dismissed. BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.04.07 17:37:54 +0530 2 (For sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status before the trial Court) 3. The case projected by the plaintiff is that, the plaintiff filed civil suit for declaration of change of plaintiff’s name from ‘Khambampati Umesh Rao’ to ‘K. Uma’ and also to change the gender mentioned in various documents from ‘male’ to ‘female’ on the ground that in educational documents, the plaintiff’s name has been mentioned as ‘Khambampati Umesh Rao’, which embarrasses the plaintiff, because the said name gives the impression of being a male, whereas the plaintiff is female. Even because of aforesaid name, in various documents like Aadhar card, plaintiff’s gender has been mentioned as male, therefore, the plaintiff has filed civil suit seeking aforesaid relief against public at large. 4. Despite publication of notice in the name of ‘public at large’ ( आम जनता), but none present, therefore, ex-parte proceeding was initiated. 5. The learned trial Court recorded evidence of the plaintiff and her father. The trial Court after considering the evidence, rejected the civil suit filed by the plaintiff on the ground that every documents, i.e. right from birth of the plaintiff, till the time of enrolling her in educational institutions or thereafter, the plaintiff’s name has been mentioned as ‘Khambampati Umesh Rao’, but there is no evidence to show that the plaintiff or her parents made any efforts to change her name. The first appeal bearing No.88A/2019, preferred by the plaintiff was also dismissed, hence, the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that the plaintiff is female, whereas her name mentioned in educational documents and all other documents as ‘Khambampati Umesh Rao’ gives the impression that plaintiff is a male. Even because of aforesaid name, in some of the 3 documents like Aadhar Card (Ex-P/4), gender of the plaintiff has been mentioned as ‘male’. Aforesaid fact has been proved by the plaintiff and her father in their deposition filed under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC before the trial Court, which is uncontroverted, therefore, the learned trial Court ought to have granted decree in favour of the plaintiff, but without considering those uncontroverted evidence, it has dismissed the civil suit and the same has been illegally upheld by the first appellate Court. Hence, it is prayed that the appeal may be admitted for hearing on the proposed substantial questions of law. 7. Perusal of the documents filed by the plaintiff before the trial Court, i.e. Ex-P/2 - mark sheet of Class-X and Ex-P/3 - mark sheet of Class-XII of the plaintiff shows that plaintiff’s name has been mentioned as ‘Khambampati Umesh Rao’. Even the photo affixed in the aforesaid mark sheets also looks like that of a male. Ex-P/4 is said to be Aadhar Card of the plaintiff and photograph affixed on that Aadhar Card also shows that the person is a male. 8. The plaintiff has not examined any independent witness to prove the fact that the plaintiff namely ‘K. Uma’ and person ‘Khambampati Umesh Rao’ is one and the same and ‘Khambampati Umesh Rao’ is a female person. Rather, as has been stated earlier that, photograph affixed in Ex-P/2, P/3 & P/4 clearly shows that the person having aforesaid three documents and photograph fixed in it, is a male person and not female. To prove her contention, the plaintiff has not examined any independent witnesses. 9. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court, upholding the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Hence, I do not find any substantial question of law to be involved in the instant case. 10. Thus, since no question of law is found to be framed, the appeal is 4 dismissed at the motion stage. 11. A Decree be drawn accordingly. 12. The parties to bear their own costs. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini