JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant has filed the instant civil second appeal against judgment and decree dated 23.11.2016 passed by the learned 1st Civil Subordinate Judge (Special Municipal Magistrate), Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) as upheld vide judgment and decree dated 20.10.2021 passed by learned 1st Additional District Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the 1st appellate court). 2. The facts leading to the filing of the instant civil second appeal are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit against the appellant/defendant before the trial court seeking a declaration to the effect that his actual date of birth is 16.03.1965 with a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to make necessary correction in the Secondary School Examination Certificate of the plaintiff issued by the defendant. In the plaint, it was pleaded that the plaintiff had appeared in Secondary School Examination held in the year 1991 as a private candidate under Roll No. 724202 and was declared successful. However, in the certificate issued by the defendant-Board, the date of birth of the plaintiff was shown as 16.03.1957 whereas the actual date of birth of the plaintiff is 16.03.1965, as was reflected in the school records as well as in the School Leaving Certificate issued in favour of the plaintiff by the Headmaster, Government High School Bhagwa, Doda. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that in the admission form submitted him, he had filled up his date of birth as 16.03.1965, but while transcribing the same in the Secondary School Examination Certificate, the defendant-Board wrongly reflected it as 16.03.1957. 3. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that in June, 2012, while he was searching for some documents, he came across his Secondary School Examination Certificate in which his date of birth was reflected as 16.03.1957, whereafter, he represented before the defendant-Board for effecting necessary correction in the record but to no avail. Ultimately, on 22.08.2012, the plaintiff served a legal notice upon the defendant-Board calling upon it to make the necessary correction in the date of birth of the plaintiff, however, the same did not yield any result, which compelled him to file the suit before the trial court. 4. The Defendant-Board contested the suit by filing its written statement. Ultimately, on 22.08.2012, the plaintiff served a legal notice upon the defendant-Board calling upon it to make the necessary correction in the date of birth of the plaintiff, however, the same did not yield any result, which compelled him to file the suit before the trial court. 4. The Defendant-Board contested the suit by filing its written statement. It was contended by the defendant-Board before the trial court that as per the Regulations of the Board issued on 16.02.2009, the limitation/period for correction of any particulars is three years from the date of issuance of qualification certificate and beyond the said period, no request of such nature can be entertained under any circumstance. It was also pleaded that limitation period for filing a civil suit for correction of any mistake is three years from the date the mistake becomes known to the plaintiff. According to the defendant-Board, the Secondary School Examination Certificate was issued to the plaintiff in July, 1992 but the suit seeking correction of the date of birth has been filed by him only in the year, 2013 and as such, the same is hopelessly barred by limitation. 5. On merits, the defendant-Board did not make any comment as regards the mistake that had taken place at the time of transcribing the birth particulars of the plaintiff from his application form to the Secondary School Examination Certificate. It was, however, denied that the plaintiff had ever represented before the defendant-Board for effecting necessary correction in his date of birth. 6. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned trial court framed the following issues: (i) Whether the present suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation? OPD. (ii) Whether no cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff to file the present suit for correction of birth particulars? OPD (iii) Whether in the diploma secondary school examination the date of birth of plaintiff has been wrongly shown as 16-03-1957 whereas his actual date of birth is 16-3-1965? (iv) Whether the plaintiff had approached to the defendants board for correction of his date of birth in terms of Board Regulations if in affirmative thereof? OPD (v) Whether the defendants Board has committed any error or mistake in recording the date of birth of the plaintiff in its record? OPP (vi) Relief? O. P. Parties. 7. (iv) Whether the plaintiff had approached to the defendants board for correction of his date of birth in terms of Board Regulations if in affirmative thereof? OPD (v) Whether the defendants Board has committed any error or mistake in recording the date of birth of the plaintiff in its record? OPP (vi) Relief? O. P. Parties. 7. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff, besides examining himself as a witness, also examined PWs Jaswant Singh, Mohd. Akram, Mohd. Abdullah and Niranjan Singh. No evidence was produced by the defendant-Board. The trial court after hearing the parties and after appreciating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the defendant-Board has committed an error in recording the date of birth of the plaintiff as 16.03.1957 in the Secondary School Examination Certificate. It was also concluded by the learned trial court that in the application form filled up by the plaintiff, he had clearly mentioned his date of birth as 16.03.1965 and not 16.03.1957. This conclusion was drawn by the learned trial court on the basis of the records of the school where the plaintiff was studying as also from the record of the Board. The learned trial court, while dealing with the issue of limitation, observed that there was no mistake on the part of the plaintiff, rather it was mistake on the part of the defendant-Board. Therefore, according to the learned trial court, the plaintiff cannot be held responsible for what was wrongly done by the defendant-Board. For this reason, the trial court held that it was not for the plaintiff to explain the delay in filing the suit. 8. The aforesaid judgment of the trial court was assailed by the defendant-Board by way of an appeal before the 1st Appellate Court. Vide impugned judgment dated 20.10.2021, the learned 1st Appellate Court concurred with the findings arrived at by the learned trial court and dismissed the appeal. 9. The appellant-Board has challenged the impugned judgments/decrees passed by the learned trial court as upheld by the learned 1st Appellate Court, on the grounds that the findings recorded by the courts below are perverse and legally unsustainable. It has been contended that there cannot be any different yardstick for computing the period of limitation when the mistake has occurred for a reason attributable to the defendant. It has been contended that there cannot be any different yardstick for computing the period of limitation when the mistake has occurred for a reason attributable to the defendant. It has been further contended that the suit of the plaintiff was clearly barred by limitation as he had approached the court after 20 years of gaining the knowledge about his date of birth recorded in his Secondary School Examination Certificate and this aspect of the matter has not been addressed by the courts below. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the record of the trial court and the 1st appellate court. I have also considered the grounds of appeal. 11. This Court while admitting the instant appeal, has framed the following questions of law (i) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation? (ii) Whether the appreciation of evidence is perverse? 12. Before deciding the question whether the suit is barred by law of limitation, it would be apt to determine the issue as to whether or not the appreciation of evidence by the learned trial court and the 1st Appellate Court is perverse. 13. Learned trial court on the basis of the evidence on record, has clearly found that the plaintiff had recorded his date of birth in the application form as 16.03.1965. This has been stated by the plaintiff in his examination in chief and he has stated that he had appeared as a private candidate for undergoing 10th Class examination in the year 1991 and at that time, he had filled up his examination form mentioning his date of birth as 16.03.1965. PW Mohd. Akram, the teacher on the basis of the record brought by him, stated that as per the record of the School, date of birth of the plaintiff is 16.03.1965. From his statement, which is based upon the School record, the School Leaving Certificate of the plaintiff which reflects his date of birth as 16.03.1965, stands proved. PW Mohd. Abdullah, the Chowkidar has also, on the basis of the record, stated that the date of birth of the plaintiff is 16.03.1965. PW Naranjan Singh, Incharge Assistant Secretary of defendant-Board on the basis of the record brought by him stated that form filled up by the plaintiff for undergoing examination reflected his date of birth as 16.03.1965. 14. PW Mohd. Abdullah, the Chowkidar has also, on the basis of the record, stated that the date of birth of the plaintiff is 16.03.1965. PW Naranjan Singh, Incharge Assistant Secretary of defendant-Board on the basis of the record brought by him stated that form filled up by the plaintiff for undergoing examination reflected his date of birth as 16.03.1965. 14. From the aforesaid evidence on record, it is clear beyond any pale of doubt that date of birth of the plaintiff in his examination form was reflected as 16.03.1965 but the defendant-Board has mistakenly transcribed the date of birth of the plaintiff in his Secondary School Examination Certificate as 16.03.1957. The finding of the learned trial court in this regard as upheld by the 1st Appellate Court is supported by the evidence on record and there is no perversity in appreciation of the evidence by the courts below on this aspect of the case. 15. That takes us to the second question whether the suit is barred by time. Article 67 of the J&K Limitation Act prescribes three years as the period of limitation for a suit in which relief has been claimed on the ground of mistake and the period of limitation begins to run when the mistake becomes known to the plaintiff. In the instant case, it has been established that there was a mistake on the part of the defendant-Board in transcribing the particulars of the date of birth of the plaintiff in the Secondary School Examination Certificate. The question to be determined is as to when this mistake came to the notice of the plaintiff. 16. In the plaint, it has been pleaded that the plaintiff had represented before the defendant-Board for effecting necessary correction in the records pertaining to his date of birth but no action was taken by the defendant-Board. It was also pleaded that in the first week of June, 2012 when the plaintiff was searching for some documents, he found his Secondary School Examination Certificate in which his date of birth was reflected as 16.03.1957 instead of 16.03.1965. According to the plaintiff on the aforesaid date i.e. June, 2012, the cause of action accrued in his favour for filing the suit. 17. The crux of the plaintiff’s case is, therefore, that he came to know about the mistake for the first time in June, 2012. According to the plaintiff on the aforesaid date i.e. June, 2012, the cause of action accrued in his favour for filing the suit. 17. The crux of the plaintiff’s case is, therefore, that he came to know about the mistake for the first time in June, 2012. He has reiterated these assertions in his examination in chief. However, in his cross examination, the plaintiff has clearly stated that he had appeared in 10th Class Examination in the year, 1991 and in the month of July, 1992 he received the Secondary School Examination Certificate in which his date of birth was reflected as 16.03.1957. This statement of the plaintiff, leaves no room for doubt in concluding that he had come to know that his date of birth has been mistakenly shown as 16.03.1957 instead of 16.03.1965 when he received the Secondary School Examination Certificate in July, 1992. 18. In his cross examination itself, the plaintiff has stated that after passing 10th Class Examination, he was granted promotion meaning thereby that he had produced his 10th Class Examination Certificate before his employer for getting the promotion. Thus, there is ample evidence on record to show that the plaintiff had come to know about the mistake in July, 1992 and he had also produced his Secondary School Examination Certificate before his employer for getting promotion. The observation of the learned trial court that the plaintiff was not asked to produce his Secondary School Examination Certificate at the time of his promotion is not based upon any evidence. In these circumstances, the contention of the plaintiff that he came to know about what was reflected in his Secondary School Examination Certificate only in July 2012, when he was searching for some documents, cannot be accepted. In view of this, the time for filing the suit for correcting the mistake in the Secondary School Examination Certificate of the plaintiff would run from July, 1992 and not from June, 2012 as claimed by him. 19. Learned trial court has, while deciding the issue of limitation in favour of the plaintiff, observed that the onus shifts on defendant to prove that there was mistake on their part in recording the date of birth of the plaintiff and therefore, it was for the defendant to correct its own mistake without insisting upon the plaintiff to explain the delay. 20. 20. The aforesaid observation of the trial court is absolutely contrary to the legal position. Whether a mistake is on the part of the plaintiff or on the part of the defendant, it is for the plaintiff to come to the court within the prescribed period of limitation for seeking correction of that mistake and if there is any delay on the part of the plaintiff in approaching the court even after coming to know about the mistake, the burden lies upon him to explain the delay and not upon the defendant. 21. It may be correct to state that the mistake in reflecting the date of birth in the Secondary School Examination Certificate of the plaintiff is attributable to the defendant-Board but once it came to the knowledge of the plaintiff, it was for him to approach the court within the prescribed period of limitation. The moment it is shown that a suit is prima facie barred by limitation, it is for the plaintiff to prove and establish that the suit has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation and not for the defendant to disprove it. In the instant case, it has been established that the plaintiff had come to know about the mistake relating to recording of his date of birth when he received the Secondary School Certificate in July 1992, therefore, it was for him to establish as to how the suit has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation. 22. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the plaintiff had approached the trial court after about 20 years of coming to know about the mistake in recording of his date of birth in the Secondary School Examination Certificate. As already noted, the limitation period for filing a suit on the ground of mistake is three years from the date when the mistake becomes known to the plaintiff, therefore, the suit of the plaintiff was hopelessly barred by time. 23. Both the learned trial court as well as the learned 1st Appellate Court have committed a grave illegality in deciding the issue with regard to the limitation in favour of the plaintiff. The findings of both the courts below on the issue of limitation being perverse are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is held that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation. 24. The findings of both the courts below on the issue of limitation being perverse are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is held that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation. 24. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is accepted and the judgment and decree passed by the trial court as upheld by the 1st Appellate Court is set aside.