Limitation - Suit for Correction of Date of Birth - Respondent No.1 Assistant District Attorney sought for Correction of date of birth after 9 years of joining of service - Respondent No.1 took more than three years to serve the Notice under Section 80 of the CPC, 1908 - Respondent No. 1 representation was turned down on the basis of the Notification issued by the Finance Department, Government of Haryana, containing the amendments to the Punjab Finance Rules framed under Article 283(2) of the Constitution of India, 1950 - Hence this appeal - Whether the suit filed by the Respondent was barrred by Limitation?
State of Haryana v. Satish Kumar Mittal and another (Decided on 07.09.2010)
Held, the High Court as well as the courts below clearly erred in entertaining the claim of Respondent No.1 for correction in his date of birth at a belated stage . It has to be filed within the time provided or within a reasonable time and it is not to be entertained merely on the basis of plausible material as held in Kirbukara. Therefore, relying on Union of India v. Harnam Singh, the Courts clearly erred in finding fault with the Appellant for allegedly applying the Notification . Hence, Appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed and Suit filed by the Respondent No.1 dismissed.
