SOM DUTT Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. in Civil Appeal No.112 of 2017, titled as State of H.P. & others Versus Som Dutt, decided on 07.09.2019, vide which the learned Appellate Court while allowing the appeal of the respondents herein, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P., in Civil Suit No.278 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? of 2011, titled as Som Dutt Versus State of H.P. & others, decided on 01.08.2017, whereby learned Trial Court had decreed a suit for declaration filed by present appellant.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that the appellant before this Court (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff') filed a suit before the learned Trial Court, seeking declaration that his date of birth was 15.05.1977 and not 15.05.1975, with a further direction to the defendants therein for correction of date of birth of the plaintiff in their record. The case of the plaintiff was that he was born on 15.05.1977 and his date of birth was so recorded in the office of Birth and Death Register at Gram Panchayat, Jasai as well as in the Admission Register of the school. When the plaintiff was admitted in the Government Middle School, Pansai for further studies, his date of birth was erroneously mentioned therein as 15.05.1975. This wrong continued in the documents issued by the Authorities concerned in the certificates which were issued in favour of the plaintiff pertaining to his middle class, 10th class, 10+2 class and above. According to the plaintiff, this mistake had occurred on account of the error which was committed by the school Authorities. As soon as he came to know about this fact on 18.03.2011, when he happened to discuss the matter with his brother, he immediately took up the matter with the concerned Authorities after collecting necessary documents. However, as nothing was done by the Authorities to correct the date of birth of the plaintiff, hence, the suit.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants inter alia on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation and further that the plaintiff was estopped from filing the suit on account of his own conduct, act and acquiescence. According to the defendants, guardian of the plaintiff had taken his School Leaving Certificate on 06.04.1987. In this, the date of birth of the plaintiff was mentioned as 15.05.1977. However, thereafter the plaintiff submitted a School Leaving Certificate with defendant No.3 alongwith an application dated 28.04.1987, in which his date of birth was mentioned as 15.05.1975.