JUDGMENT : The unsuccessful plaintiff, who is working as Deputy General Manager in Tata Consulting Engineers Limited, filed suit for declaration against the defendants Government to declare his date of birth as 29-9-1959 and to correct his date of birth in his School records and issue S.S.L.C. marks card by entering his correct date of birth as 29-9-1959 instead of 21-9-1956 at the fag end of his service. 2. The appellant – plaintiff filed O.S. No. 25197 of 2013 before the trial Court for declaring his date of birth as 29-9-1959 instead of 21-9-1956 contending that he was born on 29-9-1959 at Nelamangala, Bengaluru Rural District. His parents are Smt. R. Susheelamma and Sri M. Shekar @ M. Chandshekaraiah. The plaintiff studied up to S.S.L.C. in defendant No.3, i.e. H.M.T. Secondary High School, Jalahalli Post, Bengaluru, and has passed S.S.L.C. on 7-6-1974. In his S.S.L.C. marks card, his date of birth is wrongly mentioned as 21-9-1956 instead of 29-9-1959. The plaintiff studied further without noticing his wrong date of birth. He has completed his engineering and thereafter he did M.B.A. during the year 1990. His father and mother died on 30-9-1996 and 18-8-2000 respectively. The plaintiff came to know about his correct date of birth during the year 2008 when his parents died leaving behind him, his brothers and his sister. It is further case of the plaintiff that partition suit was pending between his father and his uncle in O.S. No. 3744 of 1985 before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru. After the death of his father, plaintiff was impleaded as a party in the appeal pending before this Court and he came to know that his parents got married on 21-6-1956 as per the marriage invitation card. The plaintiff applied for copy of the Birth Certificate in the Office of the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Nelamangala. In the said document, his date of birth is shown as 29-9-1959. Mistake was crept in while entering his correct date of birth in the School records. Therefore, the plaintiff has issued notice to the defendants to correct his date of birth. The defendants refused to correct his date of birth. Therefore, he was constrained to file a suit for declaration. 3. Defendants No.1 and 2 was represented by the learned Additional District Government Pleader and defendants No.3 and 4 failed to put their appearance. Therefore, they were placed exparte. The defendants refused to correct his date of birth. Therefore, he was constrained to file a suit for declaration. 3. Defendants No.1 and 2 was represented by the learned Additional District Government Pleader and defendants No.3 and 4 failed to put their appearance. Therefore, they were placed exparte. In spite of the opportunity provided, defendants No.1 and 2 failed to file their written statement. 4. The trial Court based on the plaint averments framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that his correct date of birth is 29.9.1959? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that his date of birth is wrongly shown as 21.9.1956? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree as prayed for? 4. What order or decree?” 5. In order to substantiate his case, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked eight documents as Exs.P1 to 8. The defendants did not produce any document, nor examined any document. 6. The trial Court, after considering the material on record, has recorded a finding that the plaintiff failed to prove that his correct date of birth as 29-9-1959 and he further failed to prove that his date of birth is wrongly shown as 21-9-1956. Therefore, plaintiff is not entitled for the relief. Accordingly, the trial Court by the impugned judgment and decree dated 3-10-2015 dismissed the suit. Hence, the present regular first appeal is filed. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 8. Mr. P.N. Nanjareddy, learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently contended that the trial Court proceeded to dismiss the suit without considering the material documents produced before the Court, specially Ex.P4 – Marriage invitation card. It clearly depicts that the marriage of the appellant parents was held on 21-6-1956. Therefore, he could not have born on 21-9-1956 within three months. The said aspect has not been considered by the trial Court at all. He further contended that the concerned Municipality which is the jurisdictional authority has also issued Ex.P5 – Birth Certificate, which clearly indicates that his date of birth as 29-9-1959 and not 21-9-1956. Though the defendants have appeared, no written statement has been filed, nor denied the plaint averments. The trial Court ought to have decreed the suit in view of the provisions of Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Though the defendants have appeared, no written statement has been filed, nor denied the plaint averments. The trial Court ought to have decreed the suit in view of the provisions of Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant sought reliance on the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court: i. CIDCO v. Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandevlekar, (2009) 7 SCC 283 ; ii. Mohd. Yunus Khan v. U.P. Power Corporation Limited & Others, (2009) 1 SCC 80 ; iii. R.K. Jangra v. State of Punjab & Others, (2009) 5 SCC 703 ; and iv. Narinder Kaur v. Punjab & Haryana High Court & Others, (2011) 11 SCC 553 9. Per contra, Sri Dildar Shiralli, the learned High Court Government Pleader, sought to justify the impugned judgment and decree of the Court below and contended that the very suit filed by the plaintiff after lapse of more than twenty-five years for declaration to change the date of birth is not maintainable and he placed reliance on the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh & Another v. M. Hayagreev Sarma, (1990) 2 SCC 682 & State of Maharashtra & Another v. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble & Others, 2010 (14) SCC 423 . 10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader and perused the entire materials on record carefully. 11. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to declare his date of birth as 29-9-1959 instead of 21-9-1956 after lapse of forty-seven years and after completion of twenty-five years of service, after joining as Deputy General Manager in Tata Consulting Engineers Limited. The sole basis for the plaintiff to file the suit is that he came to know in the year 2008 in another suit filed for partition that his correct date of birth is 29-9-1959 as his parents were married on 21-6-1956. He relied upon Ex.P4, the marriage invitation card of his parents and Ex.P5, the Birth Certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Town Municipal Council, Nelamangala, Bengaluru Rural District, to show that his date of birth is 29-9-1959. He relied upon Ex.P4, the marriage invitation card of his parents and Ex.P5, the Birth Certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Town Municipal Council, Nelamangala, Bengaluru Rural District, to show that his date of birth is 29-9-1959. The trial Court considering the entire materials on record came to the conclusion that the plaintiff filed suit at the age of fifty-six years and he passed S.S.L.C. during 1974 and has studied engineering as well as M.B.A. and he also joined the services of Tata Consulting Engineers Limited and served more than twenty-five years. Now, he wants to correct his date of birth on the ground that he came to know his correct date of birth in the year 2008 and filed suit for declaration on 31-1-2013. The very suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed on the ground that suit is barred by limitation in view of Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The trial Court recorded a finding of fact that according to the plaintiff, he was born on 29-9-1959, but he has not examined any witness in respect of his statement, he has not produced any material documents to prove the fact that he was born on 29-9-1959 and he has not examined any of his relatives or other witnesses to show his correct date of birth is 29-9-1959 and his parents got married on 21-6-1956. In the absence of specific material or eyewitnesses of the marriage of his parents, it is not possible to consider his date of birth as 29-9-1959. The trial Court also recorded a finding that at the time of admission of the plaintiff to the School, his date of birth was mentioned by his father. When his father filled his date of birth as 21-9-1956 in the admission form, the plaintiff could not have kept quite for twenty-five years of his service in the post held by him and raise that his date of birth is 29-9-1959. Accordingly, the trial Court dismissed the suit. 12. Admitted facts are that the plaintiff has not examined any of his relatives or other eyewitnesses to the marriage of his parents that the plaintiff was born on 29-9-1959 and marriage of his parents was held on 21-6-1956. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff has not made his employer as a party in the suit. 12. Admitted facts are that the plaintiff has not examined any of his relatives or other eyewitnesses to the marriage of his parents that the plaintiff was born on 29-9-1959 and marriage of his parents was held on 21-6-1956. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff has not made his employer as a party in the suit. It is also not in dispute that after completion of twenty-five years of service as Deputy General Manager in Tata Consulting Engineers Limited, the suit is filed on the basis of the marriage invitation card printed without any basis and no other material is produced before the Court to prove his date of birth as alleged. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Municipality has given Certificate showing the date of birth as 29-9-1959, but the shara column in Ex.P5 dated 30-1-2012 clearly indicates that the Municipality issued certificate on the basis of the order dated 12-8-2008 passed in C.Mis. No. 150 of 2008. No material is produced before this Court as to whether the Government and the appellant are parties to the said C.Mis and what is the power of the Magistrate Court to declare the date of birth of the plaintiff is not forthcoming. In the absence of any material to prove the fact that the date of birth declared by the competent Court as 29-9-1959, it is not possible to rely on Ex.P5 – Birth Certificate issued after lapse of forty-six years from the date of his birth to file the suit on 31-1-2013 after inordinate delay of forty-seven years. 13. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the trial Court ought to have decreed the suit as prayed for in view of the provisions of Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of the Civil Procedure in the absence of any written statement filed by the defendants cannot be accepted. It is settled principle that in a case where written statement is not filed, the Court cannot pass an exparte decree without satisfying itself that the averments made in the plaint are established. Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of the Civil Procedure does not postulate that in case of failure of the defendants to file written statement within the prescribed time, judgment should be pronounced and decree be passed automatically and mechanically. Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of the Civil Procedure does not postulate that in case of failure of the defendants to file written statement within the prescribed time, judgment should be pronounced and decree be passed automatically and mechanically. The judgment pronounced under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of the Civil Procedure should indicate that the Court has applied its mind to the merits of the case before decreeing the suit and that the judgment satisfied the requirements of Section 2(9) of the Code of the Civil Procedure. 14. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to reliance placed in the case of CIDCO (supra) that it was a case where the entry in Municipal Births and Deaths Register, Certificate issued by predecessor of municipality i.e. Grama Panchayat held that the said entry prevails over entry in school register, particularly in the absence of any proof that the same was recorded at the instance of employee’s guardian and further held that the certificate issued by municipality could not be discarded on the ground that employee’s birth took place prior to creation of municipality as the certificate was issued on the basis of records maintained by predecessor body. In the present case, the date of birth given at the time of admission by the father of the appellant was 21-9-1956. Therefore, the facts of the said case and the facts of the present case are entirely different. Therefore, the law declared in the said case is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 15. In so far as the reliance placed in the case of Mohd. Yunus Khan (supra) that no material is placed in regard to existence of a statutory rule fixing a timeframe for filing an application for correction of the date of birth in the service record. Even, if there was such a provision, the same would not be of much significance as the respondents had not shown that the mistake in the matter of recording of date of birth in the service record was known to the appellant at any earlier point of time. The appellant filed representation immediately after he came to know the mistake. An employee can take such action as is permissible in law only after coming to know that a mistake has been committed by the employer. The appellant filed representation immediately after he came to know the mistake. An employee can take such action as is permissible in law only after coming to know that a mistake has been committed by the employer. In that case, the actual date of birth of the appellant was 1-7-1948, he joined the service on 1-7-1968, but by mistake it was recorded in the service book as 27-2-1934. He came to know about the said mistake in April 1988. In those circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that mistake can be corrected. Therefore, the facts of the said case and the facts of the present case are entirely different, since in the present case it is not the mistake committed by any of the Authority, though he was born on a particular date. Therefore, the law declared in the said case is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 16. In so far as R.K. Jangra’s (supra), it was a case where correction of entry in service records were changed first in Matriculation Certificate. The Additional District Registrar, Births and Deaths, showing his date of birth as 3-1-1953 instead of 4-1-1952. Therefore, the appellant’s office, however, insisting that the entry be first got changed in matriculation certificate. In those circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the representation submitted by the appellant along with the material in support of his claim that his actual date of birth was 3-1-1953 has to be considered by the competent Authority by applying mind to the material furnished by the appellant. The facts of the said case and the facts of the present case are entirely different. Therefore, the said case has no application to the present case. 17. The reliance placed in the case of Narinder Kaur (supra) where the appellant’s date of birth was wrongly recorded in birth certificate as 26-1-1971 instead of 9-1-1972, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed to correct the date of birth and make necessary corrections in the service records. In the present case, the appellant filed a suit for declaration that his date of birth is mentioned as 21-9-1956 instead of 29-9-1959 and the said fact came to know, after a lapse of twenty-five years of service working as Deputy General Manager in Tata Consulting Engineers Limited that the marriage of his parents took place on 21-6-1956. In the present case, the appellant filed a suit for declaration that his date of birth is mentioned as 21-9-1956 instead of 29-9-1959 and the said fact came to know, after a lapse of twenty-five years of service working as Deputy General Manager in Tata Consulting Engineers Limited that the marriage of his parents took place on 21-6-1956. In absence of material documents, it cannot be accepted. Thus, the facts of the present case and facts of the said case are entirely different and has no application to case on hand. 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the alteration of the date of birth in the case of M. Hayagreev Sarma, (1990) 2 SCC 682 (supra) held as under: “7. The object underlying Rule 4 is to avoid repeated applications by a Government employee for the correction of his date of birth and with that end in view it provides that a Government servant whose date of birth may have been recorded in the service register in accordance with the rules applicable to him and if that entry had become final under the rules prior to the commencement of 1984 Rules, he will not be entitled for alteration of his date of birth. Rule 4 laid down a salutary principle to prohibit reopening of the question of correction of date of birth which may have become final prior to the enforcement of 1984 Rules. Since the question of alteration of the respondent's date of birth had been made on the basis of the School Certificate and his application for alteration had already been rejected in 1968, he was not entitled to claim alteration of his date of birth after the enforcement of 1984 Rules. It was not open to the respondent to claim alteration of his date of birth, even on the basis of extracts of the entry contained in births and deaths register maintained under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, 1886 as the question of correction of his date of birth had already been finally decided in 1968. 8. As regards validity of Rule 5 is concerned, the view taken by the Tribunal is wholly misconceived. 8. As regards validity of Rule 5 is concerned, the view taken by the Tribunal is wholly misconceived. Rule 5 lays down that where application of a Government employee for alteration of his date of birth was pending on the date of the commencement of 1984 Rules the same will be dealt with on the basis of date of birth recorded in the School and College records at the time of the entry of the employee into service. In substance Rule 5 lays down that the pending applications of the employees for alteration of their date of birth shall be decided on the basis of the age as recorded in the School and College records. Thus if on the date of entry into service the date of birth of an employee was recorded in his service book on the basis of his age as recorded in the School and College Certificate in that event the date so recorded shall be treated to be correct date of birth. However, if the date of birth recorded in the service book at the time of the entry of an employee is not based on School or College records the Rule 5 does not operate as a bar to consideration of other relevant materials in determining the date of birth of the employee. In the instant case as already noted the respondent's date of birth had been recorded in his service book on the basis of his S.S.L.C. Certificate, at the time of his entry into service, therefore, that entry had become final and he was not entitled to reopen the correctness of that entry on the basis of extract of birth register. Moreover, since the respondent's application for alteration of his date of birth had already been decided prior to enforcement of Rule 5 he was not entitled to maintain application for any alteration of his date of birth. In either case respondent was not entitled to claim alteration of his date of birth, his application was rightly rejected although on different grounds. 9. The Tribunal's view that Rule 5 was repugnant to Section 9 of Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, 1886 is wholly misconceived. Under Article 245 read with Entry 41, List II of Seventh Schedule, which relates to State Public Services, the State has exclusive power to legislate in respect of State Public Services. 9. The Tribunal's view that Rule 5 was repugnant to Section 9 of Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, 1886 is wholly misconceived. Under Article 245 read with Entry 41, List II of Seventh Schedule, which relates to State Public Services, the State has exclusive power to legislate in respect of State Public Services. Proviso to Article 309 also confers exclusive power on the Governor and the State Legislature to frame rules laying down the terms and conditions of the State employees, such rules may regulate the entry of date of birth of an employee its alteration, correction and all other allied matters. The Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, 1886 is a central law which is referable to Union List. Section 9 of the Act merely lays down that copies of entries of the registers relating to births and deaths maintained under the Act shall be admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving the births and deaths. It merely relates to admissibility of documents, it does not seek to regulate conditions of service of a State employee. There is, therefore, no question of repugnancy between Rule 5 and Section 9. It is well settled that question of repugnancy can not arise if the State makes law in exercise of its legislative powers in respect of an entry specified in List II of Seventh Schedule, even though it may incidentally trench upon a law made by the Union in respect of a matter referable to an entry in Union List of the Seventh Schedule. Rule 5 and Section 9 of the Act operate in different areas and there is no question of conflict in the two provisions. We are informed that a Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal has taken similar view in Lingerker Vaidyanath v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal's Judgment dated 2.9.1987) in holding that Rule 5 is neither repugnant to Section 9 of the aforesaid Act nor void. In this view the Tribunal's order dated October 18, 1985 is not sustainable in law.” 19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble, (2010) 14 SCC 423 (Supra) while considering the correction of the date of birth at the fag end of the career held as impermissible, which reads as under: “10. In this view the Tribunal's order dated October 18, 1985 is not sustainable in law.” 19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble, (2010) 14 SCC 423 (Supra) while considering the correction of the date of birth at the fag end of the career held as impermissible, which reads as under: “10. The spirit and the intention of this Rule is reflected in a series of judgments of this Court. After the rules, a notification has been issued by the Government of Maharashtra. The relevant part of the Notification dated 24th December, 2008 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Maharashtra, is set out as under: xxx xxx xxx 11. According to the notification, from 16.08.1981 the date of birth of Government servants cannot be changed after five years from 16.08.1981. Assuming this notification is applicable only for employees who joined after 16.08.1981, even then according to 'Instruction (1)' of the Maharashtra Rules, 1981 no application for alteration of entry regarding date of birth should be entertained after a period of five years. The said instruction is reproduced as under: xxx xxx xxx 12. Apart from the notification and the said instruction this Court in a series of cases have categorically laid down that the employees should not be permitted to change the date of birth at the fag end of his service career. In the instant case the application of alteration has been filed at the fag end of his service career after a lapse of twenty-eight years. xxx xxx xxx 19. These decisions lead to a different dimension of the case that correction at the fag end would be at the cost of large number of employees, therefore, any correction at the fag end must be discouraged by the Court. The relevant portion of the judgment in Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department & Ors. vs. R. Kirubakaran, reads as under: (SCC pp.15859, para 7) “7. An application for correction of the date of birth by a public servant cannot be entertained at the fag end of his service. It need not be pointed out that any such direction for correction of the date of birth of the public servant concerned has a chain reaction, inasmuch as others waiting for years, below him for their respective promotions are affected in this process. It need not be pointed out that any such direction for correction of the date of birth of the public servant concerned has a chain reaction, inasmuch as others waiting for years, below him for their respective promotions are affected in this process. Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury, inasmuch as, because of the correction of the date of birth, the officer concerned, continues in office, in some cases for years, within which time many officers who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may lose the promotion forever. According to us, this is an important aspect, which cannot be lost sight of by the court or the tribunal while examining the grievance of a public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth. As such, unless a clear case on the basis of materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out by the respondent, the court or the tribunal should not issue a direction, on the basis of materials which make such claim only plausible. Before any such direction is issued, the court must be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction of date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within time fixed by any rule or order. The onus is on the applicant to prove the wrong recording of his date of birth in his service book." 20. In view of the consistent legal position, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and even on a plain reading of the Notification and the instructions set out in the preceding paragraphs leads to the conclusion that no application for alteration of date of birth after five years should have been entertained. 21. The approach of the High Court in rewriting the Rules cannot be approved or sustained. Consequently, the appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat and Others v. Vali Mohd. Dosabhai Sindhi, (2006) 6 SCC 537 (supra) while considering the alteration or correction of the date of birth entered in service record, held as under: 8. It is to be noted that there are several rules governing request to change the date of birth. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat and Others v. Vali Mohd. Dosabhai Sindhi, (2006) 6 SCC 537 (supra) while considering the alteration or correction of the date of birth entered in service record, held as under: 8. It is to be noted that there are several rules governing request to change the date of birth. One of them is Rule 171 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959 (in short the 'Rules'). This Rule clearly provides that the request made for alteration of date of birth should not be entertained after the preparation of the service book of the Government servant and in any event not after the completion of the probation period or after 5 years of continuous service whichever was earlier. The said rule categorically provides that once an entry of age or date of birth has been made in the service book, no alteration of the entry afterwards should be allowed unless it is shown that the entry was due to want of care on the part of some person other than individual in question or is an obvious clerical error. xxx xxx xxx 12. An application for correction of the date of birth should not be dealt with by the Courts, Tribunal or the High Court keeping in view only the public servant concerned. It need not be pointed out that any such direction for correction of the date of birth of the public servant concerned has a chain reaction, inasmuch as others waiting for years, below him for their respective promotions are affected in this process. Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury, inasmuch as, because of the correction of the date of birth, the officer concerned, continues in office, in some cases for years, within which time many officers who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may lose the promotion for ever. Cases are not unknown when a person accepts appointment keeping in view the date of retirement of his immediate senior. This is certainly an important and relevant aspect, which cannot be lost sight of by the Court or the Tribunal while examining the grievance of a public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth. Cases are not unknown when a person accepts appointment keeping in view the date of retirement of his immediate senior. This is certainly an important and relevant aspect, which cannot be lost sight of by the Court or the Tribunal while examining the grievance of a public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth. As such, unless a clear case on the basis of materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out by the respondent and that too within a reasonable time as provided in the rules governing the service, the Court or the Tribunal should not issue a direction or make a declaration on the basis of materials which make such claim only plausible. Before any such direction is issued or declaration made, the Court or the Tribunal must be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction of date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or order. If no rule or order has been framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application has to be filed, then such application must be within at least a reasonable time. The applicant has to produce the evidence in support of such claim, which may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. Whenever any such question arises, the onus is on the applicant, to prove about the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service book. In many cases it is a part of the strategy on the part of such public servants to approach the Court or the Tribunal on the eve of their retirement, questioning the correctness of the entries in respect of their date of birth in the service books. By this process, it has come to the notice of this Court that in many cases, even if ultimately their applications are dismissed, by virtue of interim orders, they continue for months, after the date of superannuation. By this process, it has come to the notice of this Court that in many cases, even if ultimately their applications are dismissed, by virtue of interim orders, they continue for months, after the date of superannuation. The Court or the Tribunal must, therefore, be slow in granting an interim relief or continuation in service, unless prima facie evidence of unimpeachable character is produced because if the public servant succeeds, he can always be compensated, but if he fails, he would have enjoyed undeserved benefit of extended service and thereby caused injustice to his immediate junior.” 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department & Others v. R. Kirubakaran, 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 155 (supra) while considering the application for correction date of birth, held as under: 8. So far the facts of the present case are concerned, admittedly the respondent entered into the service of State Government as early as in the year 1958. He never questioned the entry in respect of his date of birth in his service register, till August, 1991, when he filed an application before the Tribunal for alteration of his date of birth from 9.8.1934 to 9.8.1936. This application was filed only about a year before his date of superannuation, mentioned in his service register. On 9.9.1992, an interim order was passed by the Tribunal, when the respondent had already superannuated with reference to the date of birth mentioned in the service register and ultimately by the impugned order, the Tribunal directed the appellants to alter his date of birth as 9.8.1936. While issuing such a direction, the Tribunal has taken into consideration, as to how many brothers the respondent has and what were the dates of their birth. Although the Tribunal has observed that the different dates of birth of the brothers of the respondent, indicate that "there is a great deal of confusion and incongruities regarding dates of birth of the various members of the applicant's family," still on basis of a report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, submitted after oral enquiry made from different persons, including the mother of the respondent, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion, that the date of birth of the respondent was 9.8.1936 instead of 9.8.1934. The Commissioner for Revenue Administration, had rejected the said report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, but the Tribunal has accepted the said report for correction of date of birth of the respondent. If the date of birth of a public servant, is corrected only on basis of a report submitted by a Revenue Officer after holding an enquiry, according to us, it will introduce uncertainty, in public services. This Court has repeatedly pointed out that correction of the date of birth of public servant is permissible, but that should not be done in a casual manner. Any such order must be passed on materials produced by the public servant from which the irresistible conclusion follows that the date of birth recorded in the service book was incorrect. While disposing of any such application, the Court or the Tribunal, has first to examine, whether the application has been made within the prescribed period under some rule or administrative order. If there is no rule or order prescribing any period, then the Court or Tribunal has to examine, why such application was not made within a reasonable time after joining the service. 9. The Tamil Nadu Service Manual contains Rules 49 and 49A which are the provision in respect of alteration and correction of the date of birth. Whenever any application is filed, by persons governed by those service rules, procedures prescribed therein have to be strictly followed, including the time limit prescribed for making such an application. Clause (b) of the aforesaid Rule 49 provides that after person had entered in service, an application to alter the date of his birth as entered in the official records "shall be entertained only if such an application is made within five years of such entry in service….”. It need not be pointed out that if an application is made for correction of the date of birth mentioned in the service records at an early date or within the time prescribed, the authorities are in much better position to verify the same. Normally, in most of the services, the date of birth is recorded in the service records on the eve of the appointment with reference to the date of birth mentioned if the Matriculation Certificate, Higher Secondary Education Board Certificate or any other certificate of similar nature produced by the applicant concerned at the time of making application for his appointment. Normally, in most of the services, the date of birth is recorded in the service records on the eve of the appointment with reference to the date of birth mentioned if the Matriculation Certificate, Higher Secondary Education Board Certificate or any other certificate of similar nature produced by the applicant concerned at the time of making application for his appointment. As such whenever an application for alteration of the date of birth is made on the eve of superannuation or near about that time, the Court or the Tribunal concerned should be more cautious because of the growing tendency amongst a section of public servants, to raise such a dispute, without explaining as to why this question was not raised earlier. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not possible to uphold the finding recorded by the Tribunal.” 22. Admittedly, the appellant-plaintiff filed the suit for declaration to change his date of birth, after a lapse of forty-seven years and after completion of twenty-five years of service while he was working as Deputy General Manager in Tata Consulting Engineers Limited, stating that he came to known in the year 2008 in another suit filed for partition that his correct date of birth is 29-9-1959 and the suit for declaration was filed on 31-1-2013, i.e. after a lapse of more than four to five years. The suit is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Article 58 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Article 58 of the Limitation Act provides three years limitation to file a suit for any declaration from the date when the right to sue first accrues. The appellant has not adduced any oral evidence, nor produced any documentary evidence to prove his date of birth as 29-9-1959 that too at the fag end of his service as Deputy General Manager stated supra. 23. The Trial Court after considering the entire materials on record, both oral and documentary evidence, has recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiff failed to prove his date of birth as 29-9-1959 and his date of birth is wrongly shown as 21-9-1956. Based on sound legal evidence on record, the appellant has not made out any case to interfere with the well crafted judgment and decree impugned under appellate powers of this Court under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Based on sound legal evidence on record, the appellant has not made out any case to interfere with the well crafted judgment and decree impugned under appellate powers of this Court under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Accordingly the regular first appeal is dismissed.