2025:CGHC:59332 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 20 of 2017 Secretary, Chhattisgarh Board Of Secondary Education Raipur, Pension Bada, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ................Defendant No.1 ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Ravi Patel S/o Radheshyam Patel, Aged About 23 Years R/o Railway Colony, Balod, Tahsil And District Balod, Chhattisgarh ................Plaintiff, 2 - Public In General Whomsoever May Be Concerned ................Defendant No.2, ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Shri Alok Bakshi, Advocate For Respondent-1 : Ms Avil Lakra and Shri Sanjay Sahu, Advocates ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Judgment on Board 05.12.2025 1. Present Second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the defendant-1 against the impugned judgment and decree dated 23.06.2016, passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Balod, District- Balod, CG in Civil Appeal- 7A of 2015, whereby, the First appeal filed by the plaintiff was allowed, and the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2014, passed by the learned Civil Judge Class-II, Balod, District- Balod in Civil Suit-15A of 2014 was set aside. 2. For the sake of convenience, status of the parties, as shown in the plaint, is being taken in this appeal. Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2025.12.17 16:52:48 +0530 Sa 20 of 2017 2 3. The plaintiff has filed Civil Suit before the learned trial Court for declaration that his date of birth is 2nd February, 1990. Plaintiff has pleaded in the plaint that in the year 2006, he successfully cleared his Class-X examination from the Chhattisgarh Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Raipur, CG. He was born on 2nd February, 1990, and due to inadvertency, at the time of his admission in the School, his date of birth has been recorded in the School Register as 2nd February, 1988. Since the date of birth has been wrongly recorded in the School Register at the time of admission in the school, same has also been recorded in his Class-X mark-sheet. He got corrected his date of birth in the mark-sheets up to Class-VIII, and on that basis, he made an application before defendant-1 for correction of his date of birth in his Class-X mark-sheet in the year 2013 along with an affidavit. However, his application has not been taken into consideration by defendant-1 on the ground that it was filed beyond the period, and asked him to get declaration by a competent Court. A legal notice was also served upon defendant-1, and then, Civil suit has been filed. 4. After service of notice on the defendants, they have not chosen to appear in the proceeding before the learned trial court, and remained ex parte. They not even filed their written statement. 5. Instead of passing of a decree under Order 8, Rule 10 of the CPC, learned trial Court has framed points for determination, and proceeded for recording evidence of the plaintiff. The following points were framed for determination : विचारणीय वि दु वि ्ቌ्ቧ 1. ቄኋ दु की ्ቜविकी ज्ቖविवि ीሻ Sa 20 of 2017 3 विदु की 02.02.1990 ( दु फरर स उቐኍस स ቘኔ!) ीሻ" ? 2. सीሻय ए ्ቤय की वि%की 13 की! अ सर 6. In support of his claim, plaintiff has examined himself as PW1, and Dinesh Kumar as PW2. He relied upon the documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P18, which are the School records, including the birth certificate of the plaintiff, Ex.P11. 7. Learned trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the plaintiff, dismissed the suit holding that with respect to date of birth, plaintiff has examined Dinesh Kumar (PW2), who was the Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Sambalpur, but plaintiff’s own parents have not been examined, even the village Kotwar has not been examined, who had the record of Births of children in the village. Therefore, in absence of any sufficient documentary evidence, plaintiff’s suit was negated by the learned trial Court. 8. Above judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff was challenged by him in first Civil Appeal before the learned First Additional District Judge, Balod, which was allowed by the learned First Appellate Court, and decree has been passed in favour of the plaintiff, holding that his date of birth is 2nd February, 1990, which has been proved by sufficient documentary evidence including birth certificate Ex.P11, which has been issued by the competent authority. Said judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court is under challenge in the present Second Appeal, filed by defendant-1. Sa 20 of 2017 4 9. The Second Appeal is admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law; “Whether finding given by the 1st Appellate Court that actual date of birth of respondent No.1/plaintiff is 2-2-1990, by reversing the judgment and decree passed by learned trial court, is perverse, illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law ?” 10. Learned counsel for defendant-1 would submit that the plaintiff could not establish the fact that from where he got the knowledge of his date of birth, and there is no sufficient material on record with respect to date of birth of the plaintiff as 2nd February, 1990. Birth Certificate was subsequently issued in the year 2012, and all the school record on which basis the birth certificate was said to have been issued is of the year 2012. The correction made in the School record of the plaintiff is also suspicious, because there is no basis of the same. It is only after 2012, all records were corrected and obtained by the plaintiff from the school authorities. Said birth certificate is issued on the basis of an affidavit, which cannot be said to be authentic document, yet, learned First Appellate Court had relied upon the said Certificate, ignoring the other school records, which are self contradictory. The judgment passed by the learned trial Court was well reasoned judgment, and the plaintiff failed to prove his original date of birth by leading evidence of his own parents, even he could have examined his parents to say about the actual date of birth. The village Secretary cannot have his personal knowledge about birth of the plaintiff. Declaring date of birth as 02.02.1990 on the basis of birth certificate Ex.P11 is Sa 20 of 2017 5 erroneous, and the appeal may be allowed and judgment and decree of the first appellate Court may be set aside. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would support the impugned judgment, and decree passed by the learned First Appellate court, and would submit that defendant-1 has not chosen to file its written statement, and contest the claim before the learned trial Court. Even, they have not filed any application for setting aside the ex parte decree passed by the learned trial Court, and the pleading and evidence filed by the plaintiff were unrebutted. She would also submit that the plaintiff has proved his case by placing sufficient documentary evidence. Therefore, the judgment, and decree passed by the First Appellate Court do not suffer from any perversity, and the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court. 13. On perusal of the judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court, it transpires that learned First Appellate Court has considered the evidence of the plaintiff PW1, who stated in his evidence that he got corrected his date of birth in the mark-sheet up to Class- VIII as 2nd February, 1990. On the basis of Transfer Certificate, Ex.P17, when he made application for correction of his date of birth in his Class-X mark-sheet, his application has not been considered by defendant-1, and then, he served legal notice to defendant-1 under Section 80 of the CPC, and ultimately, he filed a suit for declaration of his date of birth as 2nd February, 1990. Sa 20 of 2017 6 14. Plaintiff has relied upon his birth certificate Ex.P11, which has been issued by the Registrar, Births and Deaths, Balod. The said birth certificate has been issued in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of an affidavit, submitted before the Executive Magistrate, Dondilohara, and he, vide order dated 12.02.2012, Ex.P18, directed the Registrar, Births, and Deaths to register the date of birth of the plaintiff in the relevant register, and on that basis, the birth certificate Ex.P11 was issued to the plaintiff, showing his date of birth as 2nd February, 1990. 15. Birth Certificate is a statutory document, issued under the Birth and Death Registration Act, 1969, and it is admissible under Section 35 of the the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It can be presumed that Birth Certificate is an extract of the official record, maintained by the authorities for the purpose. It is relevant to mention here that defendant-1, who is appellant in the present appeal, remained ex parte, and even they have not filed any written statement in the case. No cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses by the defendant side, and therefore, if the plaintiff evidence is unrebutted in the cross- examination, the same can be taken as admitted by the defendant, and in such a situation of admitted evidence available on record, the Birth Certificate issued by the competent authority in favour of the plaintiff, showing his date of birth as 2nd February, 1990 cannot be disbelieved. The learned first appellate court has passed the decree in favour of the plaintiff, declaring his date of birth as 2nd February, 1990, and he is entitled to get correction of his date of birth in the school record, cannot be said to be perverse. 16. There is absolutely unrebutted pleading and evidence, on the basis of which the learned First Appellate Court has passed a decree in favour of the Sa 20 of 2017 7 plaintiff, even otherwise, no prejudice would be caused to the defendant-1, even if a decree has been passed declaring the date of birth of the plaintiff to be corrected in the mark-sheet of the plaintiff by defendant-1. 17. Accordingly, I do not find any perversity or illegality in granting decree in favour of the defendant-1, declaring his date of birth as 2nd February, 1990, and the substantial question of law framed in this appeal is answered accordingly, that the finding recorded by the learned first appellate court that the date of birth of the plaintiff is 2nd February, 1990 is not perverse. 18. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. The appellate decree be drawn accordingly. 19. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma