JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The plaintiff's suit for rendition of a declaratory decree with a consequential relief of mandatory injunction, was, under concurrent pronouncements recorded thereon by both the learned Courts below, hence, dismissed. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration with a consequential relief of mandatory injunction against the defendant on the ground that her date of birth is 11.12.1962 which has been recorded by her father in the Panchayat record on the basis of birth certificate issued by the concerned Gram Panchayat. In the certificate issued by Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education, Dharmashala, her date of birth wrongly being shown as 11.12.1960, thereby making her elder by two years. The plaintiff has further submitted that original matriculation certificate issued by the defendant to her in April/May 1978, was lost somewhere and the duplicate certificate issued to her on 20.04.1981 in which her date of birth mentioned as 11.12.1962. She has further submitted that at the time of her service the Dy. Director, Education raised objection with regard to her date of birth and as such in order to correct the same, she filed a Civil No.8 of 2002 of 19.01.2002, which was withdrawn her with permission of the court on depositing of the costs. The plaintiff has further submitted that earlier suit was withdrawn by her as the legal notice required under Section 80 was not issued to the State of H.P., but in the present suit only the H.P. Board of School Education has been sued which is autonomous body and does not require any notice under Section 80 CPC. Thus, the plaintiff has prayed that a decree for declaration to the effect that her correct date of birth is 11.12.1962 and not 11.12.1960 be passed in her favour and defendant be directed through mandatory injunction to issue modified matriculation certificate after correcting her date of birth. 3. The notice of the suit was given to the defendant, who has sent one letter that on payment of prescribed fee the change in the date of birth may be considered but the defendant does not appear to defend the proceedings, hence, the defendant board was proceeded against ex-parte on 9.1.2009. 4. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/appellant herein. 4. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/appellant herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom by the plaintiff/appellant before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 5. Now the plaintiff/appellant herein, has instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court wherein she assails the findings recorded in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission on 03.07.2012, this Court, admitted the appeal instituted by the plaintiff/appellant against the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether both the Courts below have misread, misinterpreted and misconstrued the oral as well as documentary evidence of the parties, especially document Ex.PW1/B, copy of birth certificate, Ex.PW1/C, copy of school leaving certificate and Ex.PW1/D, copy of school leaving register, statement of PW-1 appellant and statement of PW-2 Churamani, which has materially prejudiced the case of the appellant? 2. Whether the first appellate court has not considered and discuss the document Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D and under law, the first appellate court is bound to discuss each and every oral and documentary evidence of the parties? 3. Whether there is no limitation to challenge a void document and document Ex.PW1/D has been wrongly prepared as compare to document Ex.PW1/C? Substantial questions of Law No.1 to 3. 6. Ex. PW1/C reveals the date of birth of the plaintiff to be 11.12.1962 also Ex.PW1/D makes revelations in consonance therewith besides Ex.PW1/C reflects the date of birth of the plaintiff, akin to the one borne in Ex.PW1/B. Ex.PW1/D and Ex.PW1/E both reflect the date of birth of the plaintiff, to be 11.12.1960. However, the plaintiff, refutes, the aforesaid reflections borne in Ex.PW1/D and in Ex.PW1/E qua her date of birth being 11.12.1960. Contrarily, she contends that her date of birth is 11.12.1962. Consequently, she, for succoring her contention, of, her date of birth being 11.12.1962, has placed reliance upon a copy of birth certificate, issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, certificate whereof, is borne in Ex.PW1/B. Since, Ex.PW1/B stands issued by the competent statutory authority, thereupon, the apt revelations borne therein qua the relevant trite factum, warrant imputation of implicit reliance thereon. Even, if it is a photo copy of the original, yet when it stood tendered into evidence, whereafter, the relevant exhibition endorsement was made thereon, thereupon, it acquires formidable sanctity. Both the learned Courts below in disimputing sanctity to Ex.PW1/B, whereas, it was issued by a competent authority, constituted under the relevant provision of law, obviously, hence, is rendered both legally inapt besides legally in sagacious, conspicuously, when it overcomes the contrary thereto reflections occurring in those exhibits, whereunder the date of birth of the plaintiff, is reflected to be 11.12.1960. 7. The learned Courts below, had, non suited the plaintiff on the ground of hers, not, instituting the suit, within three years, from, the date of hers evidently acquiring knowledge qua her date of birth being incorrectly reflected in the apposite certificate, inasmuch as, (i) in May, 1978, whereat she lost her matriculation certificate and on 20.04.1981, whereat she was supplied duplicate copy thereof by the board, wherein, revelations are borne of hers being born on 11.12.1960. The aforesaid reason assigned, by both the learned Courts below, for non suiting the plaintiff, on anvil of the suit being barred by time, given its being preferred, beyond three years from the date of hers acquiring knowledge qua the incorrect reflections therein, of her date of birth, (ii) is engendered by gross fallacy, for the reasons (a) with the plaintiff joining government service in the year 1998 besides hers averring in the plaint, of, upon hers joining service, objections being raised, at the apposite establishment, with respect to her date of birth, besides when in consonance therewith, she rendered testifications, hence (b) render the aforesaid period/time to constitute, whereat, the cause of action accrued vis-a-vis the plaintiff, for, hers hence within three years therefrom, making endeavours, to, in consonance with Ex.PW1/B, seek corrections of her date of birth, in her matriculation certificate. The plaintiff, earlier thereto more specifically, on 20.04.1981, when she purportedly acquired knowledge qua her incorrect pre-recorded date of birth, in the apposite certificate, did not thereat rear the apposite causes of action nor the apposite suit was institutable, within three years thereafter, (c) since at that stage she was neither in government service nor was aspiring to seek benefits of employment. Contrarily, when the effect of her date, of birth would accrue, especially would impinge upon the longevity of hers serving in the government service, only on hers joining public service, (d) thereupon with hers immediately, on joining government service, hers noticing the incorrect reflections of her date of birth, in the apposite service records, also within three years, of legally accruable cause of action, hers instituting the instant suit, render her suit to be falling within limitation. 8. The above discussion unfolds the fact that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court as well as by the learned trial Court are not based upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court as well as the learned trial Court have excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. All the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the appellant and against the respondents. 9. In view of the above discussion, the instant appeal is allowed and the impugned judgments and decrees rendered by both the learned Courts below are set aside. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed to the effect that the correct date of birth of the plaintiff is 11.12.1962 and the H.P. Board of School Education is directed to issue a modified matriculation certificate to the plaintiff after correcting her date of birth as 11.12.1962. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back.