ORDER N.N. Tiwari, J. 1. This Second Appeal by the defendant/appellant/appellants is against judgment and decree of affirmance dated 30.7.1999 passed by the 3rd Addl. District Judge, Dhanbad upholding the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 57/97 praying for declaration that his date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate, as 17.7.1944, is correct and genuine and the date of birth entered in the Service Book is incorrect and be corrected as 17.7.1944. 2. The plaintiffs case is that he had passed matriculation examination from Bihar School Examination Board in the year 1961 and in the certificate his date of birth was recorded as 17.7.1944. On the basis of the said matriculation certificate, he was appointed in Katras Chaitudih Colliery as Miner/Loader. When the coal mines were nationalized, records were prepared and in the service book of the petitioner his year of birth was mentioned as 1937 although in the service book his qualification has been shown as matriculate. 3. The grievance of the plaintiff was that his date of birth was recorded in the matriculation certificate has been ignored and imaginary and arbitrary date of birth was mentioned in his service book. The plaintiff on the basis of said wrong entry of his date of birth was asked to retire prior to his reaching the age of superannuation. 4. The defendant appeared and contested the suit stating inter alia that the plaintiff had himself mentioned his date of birth as 1937 and the same was recorded in the statutory Form B register, prepared and maintained under the provisions of Section 48 of the. Mines Act. The plaintiff had not produced the matriculation certificate at the time of his appointment. The name of the petitioner is Dwarika Dusadh but the certificate is in the name of Dwarika Ram and thus there is difference in the name. Moreover, Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act. cannot, be invoked at the fag end of his service and that the plaintiff has since been retired from the service, the suit has become infructuous. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, several issues were framed by the trial Court. Both the parties adduced evidences and on detail discussion and consideration of the evidence on record, the trial Court decided almost all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, several issues were framed by the trial Court. Both the parties adduced evidences and on detail discussion and consideration of the evidence on record, the trial Court decided almost all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. The defendant then filed regular appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Dhanbad, being Title Appeal No. 43/99. The saicl appeal was finally heard and disposed of by the 3rd Addl. District Judge, Dhanbad. Learned Lower Appellate Court also appraise and considered the evidences and materials on record and came to the finding that the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate as 17.7.1944 is correct and genuine and that the date of birth recorded otherwise in his service record is incorrect. 6. Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant/appellant tried to assail the judgment and decrees of the Courts below on the ground that there was a discrepancy in the surname and that recorded in the matriculation certificate was different from name of the appellant mentioned in the service record. In the matriculation certificate, the name is Dwarika Ram whereas in the service record the petitioners name is Dwarika Dusadh and as such the Courts below should not have exhibited the matriculation certificate as the evidence of the date of birth of the plaintiff. Secondly, that the Courts below has committed an error in ignoring the date of birth (1937) (Ext. B) which was mentioned in the statutory service record, as prepared and maintained under the provision of Section 48 of the Mines Act and the same is recorded in Form B Register which it itself an statutory record and the learned Courts below have committed an error in recording their finding that the said entry is without any basis. 7. Mr. D.C. Ghosh, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent on the other hand submitted that on the basis of the evidence and materials on record, the learned Courts below have concurrently found that the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate is correct and genuine. It has been further found that there was basis for making any entry in the service record mentioning the plaintiffs date of birth as 1937. It has been further found that there was basis for making any entry in the service record mentioning the plaintiffs date of birth as 1937. Learned counsel submitted that the said concurrent findings of fact are based on appreciation of evidences on record and there is absolutely no error in the impugned judgments and decrees. 8. After hearing the parties and perusing the record, find that the Courts below have discussed the evidences and after thorough appraisal of the evidences and materials on record have come to the finding that the date of birth mentioned in the service register is contrary to the matriculation certificate of the plaintiff and that the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate is correct and genuine. The said concurrent finding is base on appreciation of facts and evidences on record by two Courts cannot be interfered with in the second appeal. No other grounds has been urged giving rise to any substantial question of law to be framed and decided by this Court. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.