1 2026:CGHC:27259 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 67 of 2021 1 - Dr. Udaynath @ Uderam Diwan, S/o Bhukhau Ram, Aged About 60 Years Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Jhalap, Tahsil Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Joint Director (Vigyapti), Directorate, Health Services Raipur Chhattisgarh, 3rd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through - Learned Collector Mahasamund, District Collector Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Dr. Surendra Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Aman Tamboli, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Judgment on Board 02.07.2026 1. Heard on admission. 2. The parties are referred to their original status before the learned trial Court. 3. This is an appeal preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “CPC”) assailing the legality, correctness and validity of the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2021 passed in Civil Appeal No. H-04-A/2021 passed by the learned District Judge, Mahasamund, (C.G.) (for short “learned Appellate Court”). HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2026.07.08 10:26:43 +0530 2 4. By the impugned judgment and decree, the appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 96 of the CPC was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 18.01.2021 passed by the learned 1st Civil Judge, Class-I, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) (for short “learned Trial Court”) in Civil Suit No. 7-A/2020 was affirmed. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff instituted the present suit seeking a declaration regarding his correct date of birth. It was pleaded that at the time of his birth, his pet name was Uderam. At the time of his admission to school his name was recorded as Udainath and both names refer to one and the same person. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff was initially appointed as a Medical Officer at the Community Health Centre, Dantewada, District Bastar on 26.12.1990. Thereafter, with effect from 02.07.2009 he has been serving at the Primary Health Centre, Jhalap, District Mahasamund. At the time of his entry into service, his date of birth was recorded in the service records on the basis of the documents then available. However, his date of birth was erroneously recorded as 19.02.1956 whereas his actual date of birth is 13.12.1957. The plaintiff submitted representations to the competent authorities seeking correction of his date of birth in the service records. As no action was taken, he served a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, thereafter, instituted the present civil suit. 6. The defendant was proceeded against ex parte before the learned Trial Court. 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues for determination: 1.Whether the plaintiff's true and actual date of birth is 13.12.1957? “Not Proved.” 2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to have the “Not Proved.” 3 incorrect date of birth recorded in the Government records, i.e., 19.12.1957, corrected and substituted with the true and actual date of birth, i.e., 13.12.1957, by Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the costs of the suit from Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2? “Not Proved.” 4. Relief and costs. The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs. 8. In support of his case, the plaintiff examined two witnesses before the learned Trial Court. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court decided the issues against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff preferred a first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the First Appellate Court. The said appeal also came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the finding recorded by the both courts below dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, is bad in law, perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. It is submitted that the appellant's actual date of birth is 13.12.1957 which has been duly established by cogent and reliable evidence, however, the courts below failed to appreciate the same. It is further submitted that the findings recorded on all the issues are not based on a proper appreciation of the evidence. It is, therefore, contended that the substantial questions of law proposed in the memorandum of appeal deserve to be framed and that the appeal deserves to be admitted. 4 10. Mr. Aman Tamboli, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 supports the impugned judgment and decree. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record with due care and circumspection. 12. Issue No. 1 related to the question whether the plaintiff's actual date of birth is 13.12.1957. The learned Trial Court decided the issue against the plaintiff holding that the same had not been proved. While deciding the issue, the learned Trial Court meticulously assessed the evidence on record particularly Ex. P-9C being the entry in the birth register maintained at Police Station Tumgaon. The Trial Court found that the said document did not establish the plaintiff's date of birth as 13.12.1957. The Trial Court further observed that no official from the office of the District Record Keeper/Collector, Mahasamund, was examined to prove the relevant record. Upon an overall appreciation of the evidence, the learned Trial Court held that the plaintiff had failed to adduce satisfactory and convincing evidence to establish that his actual date of birth was 13.12.1957. 13. Issue No. 2 related to the correction of the plaintiff's date of birth in his service records. The learned Trial Court found that the plaintiff's date of birth had been recorded in the service records as 19.02.1956 and that the plaintiff had sought correction thereof. However, since the plaintiff failed to prove that his actual date of birth was 13.12.1957, the learned Trial Court held that he was not entitled to seek correction of the entry in the service records. Accordingly, the issue was decided against the plaintiff. It is also pertinent to note that the suit came to be instituted in the year 2020, when the appellant was approximately 60 years of age. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department and ors. v. 5 R.Kirubakaran, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 155 observed that unless a clear case on the basis of conclusive materials is made out, correction should not be ordered. In the case of U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and ors. v. Raj Kumar Agnihotri, (2005) 11 SCC 465, it is observed that where the Govt. servant had himself declared his date of birth in High School examination form and the same was entered in High School Certificate as well as in his service record, held, same cannot be allowed to be changed without recourse to law just a few years before his retirement. In the case of State of Uttaranchal and ors. v. Pitamber Dutt Semwal, (2005) 11 SCC 477, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the writ petition challenging the recorded date of birth filed 30 long years after the preparation of service book ought not to have interfered with by the High Court. In the case of State of Maharashtra and anr. v. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble and ors, (2010) 14 SCC 423, it is observed that any change in date of birth in service record at fag end of service career is not permissible and in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and ors. v. Shyam Kishore Singh, (2020) 3 SCC 411, it is observed that prayer for change of date of birth in service register cannot be entertained at fag end of service. 14. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court on Issue Nos. 1 and 2 were duly affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court and, in light of the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment, do not warrant any interference in the present appeal. 15. It is well settled that for admission of a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, formulation of a substantial question of law is sine qua non, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sir Chunilal V. Mehta and sons Ltd. v. 6 Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. reported in AIR 1962 SC 1314 and in the matter of Chandrabhan (Deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors. Vs. Saraswati & Ors. reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1273. In the present case, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 16. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. Decree be drawn accordingly. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE H. Ansari