JUDGMENT : A.K. RATH, J. Plaintiff is the appellant against an affirming judgment in a suit for declaration that her date of birth is 26.12.1961 and the date of birth recorded in the certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education of Orissa, Cuttack as 05.08.1957 is wrong. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that she passed H.S.C. examination in the year 1977 conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, Cuttack (hereinafter referred to ‘BSE’). The B.S.E. had issued a certificate in her favour. Her actual date of birth is 26.12.1961. But then in the certificate, the same had been wrongly recorded as 05.08.1957. Her maternal uncle admitted her in the school and signed the admission register as a guardian. She was a minor. She was not aware of entry of her date of birth into the school admission register. The date of birth had been wrongly entered into the school admission register. The date of birth of her elder sister, who passed H.S.C. examination in the year 1974, had been recorded as 07.01.1958. Thus her date of birth recorded in the certificate is wrong. With this factual scenario, she instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra. 3. The defendant no.1 filed written statement denying assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendant no.1 is that the date of birth of the plaintiff recorded in the school admission register had been carried out at subsequent stages. The H.S.C. certificate was issued on 01.03.1978 to the plaintiff. The cause of action of the suit arose on the said date. The suit is barred by limitation. As per Regulation 9, Section-I, Chapter-X of the Board of Secondary Education’s Regulations, a candidate who seeks to be admitted to the High School Certificate Examination, duly filled in, the application in the best of his handwriting of the candidate concerned. On the basis of the materials supplied by the plaintiff, defendant no.1 has maintained the records. Board’s Regulations 39 provides that once the date of birth entered into the Boards records cannot be changed unless the same is of a clerical error or printing mistake that to an application for correction of date of birth should be made within three years of passing the examination. Board’s Regulations 39 provides that once the date of birth entered into the Boards records cannot be changed unless the same is of a clerical error or printing mistake that to an application for correction of date of birth should be made within three years of passing the examination. No change in date of birth recorded shall be made unless the application for correction is received through the head of the institution concerned within three years of passing the examination. 4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court struck seven issues. To substantiate the case, the plaintiff had examined two witnesses and on her behalf three documents had been exhibited. No evidence was adduced by the defendants. The learned trial court came to hold that the plaintiff has passed H.S.C. examination in the year 1977. She received the original certificate in the year 1978. The plaintiff has failed to comply with the provisions of Regulations 39 of the Board’s Regulations. Therefore the suit is barred by limitation. Held so, it dismissed the suit. The plaintiff unsuccessfully challenged the judgment and decree of the learned trial court before the learned Second Additional District Judge, Cuttack in T.A. No.66 of 1988, which was eventually dismissed. 5. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- “1.Whether the plaintiff’s suit can be said to be barred by virtue of the regulations of the Board that has come into force with effect from 1981? 2. Whether the suit is barred under Article 58 of the Limitation Act?” 6. Heard Mr. A.K. Tripathy, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.S. Rao, learned counsel for the respondents. 7. Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the date of birth mentioned in the H.S.C. certificate of the plaintiff is wrong. The date of birth of her elder sister is 07.01.1958. The actual date of birth of the plaintiff is 26.12.1961. The plaintiff was admitted into the primary school by her maternal uncle on the basis of his information supplied by him. The date of birth of the plaintiff had been wrongly recorded in the school admission register. The same had been carried out at subsequent stages. The actual date of birth of the plaintiff is 26.12.1961. The plaintiff was admitted into the primary school by her maternal uncle on the basis of his information supplied by him. The date of birth of the plaintiff had been wrongly recorded in the school admission register. The same had been carried out at subsequent stages. For the first time, the plaintiff came to know about her wrong date of birth in the year 1987 when she compared the certificate issued to her elder sister along with her certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education. He further submitted that Board’s Regulation came into effect in the year 1981. The same has no retrospective effect. The suit was filed in the year 1987. The suit is not barred by limitation. He relied on decisions in the cases of Kanailal Das and another vs. Jiban Kanai Das and another, AIR 1977 Calcutta 189 and Daya Singh and another vs. Gurudev Singh (Dead) by L.Rs. & Ors., 2010 (I) CLR (SC) 253. 8. Per contra, Mr. Rao, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that what exactly is the date of birth of the plaintiff is a question of fact. The date of birth of the plaintiff had been recorded in the school admission register as 05.08.1957. She filled up the form for appearing in the H.S.C. examination, 1977 and mentioned her date of birth. The date of birth has been correctly reflected in the certificate. The certificate was issued in the year 1978. The suit was filed after 9 years of the issuance of H.S.C. certificate. Under Article 58 of the Indian Limitation Act, right to sue accrues on its first infringement. Thus the suit is barred by limitation. 9. Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the appellant has rightly submitted that the Board’s Regulations came into force in the year 1981 and the same has no retrospective effect. But then the question does arise as to whether the suit was within the prescribed period of limitation. A suit for declaration covered by Article 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 must be filed within three years from the date when the right to sue first accrues. Article 58 of the Indian Limitation Act read thus :- “Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which 58. To obtain any other declaration. A suit for declaration covered by Article 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 must be filed within three years from the date when the right to sue first accrues. Article 58 of the Indian Limitation Act read thus :- “Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which 58. To obtain any other declaration. Three years When the right to sue first accrues.” 10. In Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. V. Union of India & Anr. (2011) 9 SCC 126 , the apex Court held: “30. While enacting Article 58 of the 1963 Act, the legislature has designedly made a departure from the language of Article 120 of the 1908 Act. The word “first” has been used between the words “sue” and “accrued”. This would mean that if a suit is based on multiple causes of action, the period of limitation will begin to run from the date when the right to sue first accrues. To put it differently, successive violation of the right will not give rise to fresh cause and the suit will be liable to be dismissed if it is beyond the period of limitation counted from the day when the right to sue first accrued.” 11. The apex Court in the case of Board of Trustees of Port of Kandla vs. Hargovind Jasraj and another, 2013 (3) SSC 182 held thus:- “22. The expression right to sue has not been defined. But the same has on numerous occasions fallen for interpretation before the Courts. In State of Punjab & Ors. V. Gurdev Singh (1991) 4 SCC 1 , the expression was explained as under : “6………. The words “right to sue” ordinarily mean the right to seek relief by means of legal proceedings. Generally, the right to sue accrues only when the cause of action arises, that is, the right to prosecute to obtain relief by legal means. The suit must be instituted when the right asserted in the suit is infringed or when there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right by the defendant against whom the suit is instituted.” 12. Admittedly the certificate was issued to the plaintiff in the year 1978. The right to sue in respect of the present case accrued to the plaintiff when she received the certificate by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, Cuttack. Admittedly the certificate was issued to the plaintiff in the year 1978. The right to sue in respect of the present case accrued to the plaintiff when she received the certificate by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, Cuttack. The plaintiff ought to have filed the suit within three years from the date of receipt of the certificate as provided under Article 58 of the Indian Limitation Act. The suit was filed in the year 1987. Thus, the suit was clearly barred by limitation. 13. In the wake of aforesaid, the appeal, sans merit, deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.