[2025:RJ-JP:28262] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 605/2017 Moj Sigar D/o Shri Dhalchand Sigar, R/o Gram Post Baswaasi, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu Raj. ----Appellant Versus Board Of Secondary Education Rajasthan Ajmer Through, Its Secretary Board Of Secondary Education, Rajasthan Ajmer, District Ajmer. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rahul Sharma, Adv. & Ms. Chanchal, Adv. for Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit K. Dikshit, Adv. for Mr. Prahlad Singh, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment 28/07/2025 This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellant- plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the judgment dated 06.06.2017 passed by District Judge, Jhunjhunu (for short 'the first appellate Court') in Civil Regular Appeal No.25/2017, whereby the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and affirmed the order dated 22.03.2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nawalgarh in Civil Suit No.09/2017, by which the trial Court allowed the application filed by the respondent-defendant (for short ‘the defendant’) and rejected the plaint filed by the plaintiff. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration of 14.11.1993 as the correct date of birth. In plaint, [2025:RJ-JP:28262] (2 of 4) [CSA-605/2017] plaintiff mentioned that she is a bonafide resident of the Village Badwasi, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu. She born on 14.11.1993 at Mor Hospital, Nawalgarh. It was also mentioned that, while filling the form for the Secondary Examination, the plaintiff's date of birth was inadvertently written as 14.11.1994. On 28.02.2015, the plaintiff obtained a Bachelor of Technology degree in Mechanical Engineering. She was preparing for competitive examinations and applied to ISRO in the year 2016, where there is requirment that there shall be a gap of 13 years between the date of birth and the date of passing the Secondary Examination. Plaintiff was unable to fill the form in the year 2016 and she got the knowledge that her date of birth was wrongly written as 14.11.1994, although in some documents (e.g. Aadhar Card), the plaintiff's date of birth written as 14.11.1993. So, her date of birth be changed from 14.11.1994 to 14.11.1993. Defendant filed the written statement and also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that plaintiff had no right for changing her date of birth because she had filed the present suit after a lapse of 11 years. The trial Court vide order dated 22.03.2017 allowed the application filed by the defendant and rejected the plaintiff's plaint. Plaintiff challenged the said order dated 22.03.2017 passed by the trial Court before the first appellate Court. The first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 06.06.2017 dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and affirmed the order dated 22.03.2017. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court had committed an error in [2025:RJ-JP:28262] (3 of 4) [CSA-605/2017] rejecting the plaint as well as dismissing the appeal. He further submits that due to human error, date of birth of the plaintiff was wrongly written as 14.11.1994 instead of 14.11.1993. She got the knowledge, when she was unable to fill up the form of ISRO. So, the judgment and order passed by both the courts below be set aside and the present second appeal be admitted on the substantial questions of law, as framed in the memo of appeal. Learned counsel for the defendant has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff and submits that the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court rightly rejected the plaint as well as dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff because as per the rules, the plaintiff had right to change the date of birth within 5 years from the date of declaration of result. Plaintiff filed the present suit after a lapse of 11 years. So, there is no ground to admit the present second appeal on the substantial questions of law, as framed in the memo of appeal and the appeal be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as learned counsel for the defendant. It is an admitted position that plaintiff filed the suit after a lapse of 11 years. As per the rules of Rajasthan Secondary Education Board modification in the date of birth is permissible within 5 years' from the date of declaration of result but plaintiff had not availed the said opportunity. So, in my considered opinion, the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court had not committed any error in rejecting the plaint as well as dismissing the appeal. [2025:RJ-JP:28262] (4 of 4) [CSA-605/2017] So, no ground is made out to admit the appeal on the substantial questions of law, as framed in the memo of appeal. Therefore, the present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/71