Delhi District Court
Sunil Kumar Sharma vs Union Of India on 3 June, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. SALONI SINGH, CIVIL JUDGE - 03,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI DISTRICT,
NEW DELHI
CS No.95/13
Unique Case ID no. 02403C0160742013
Sunil Kumar Sharma
S/o, Sh. Balbir Chand Sharma
R/o, C-88, Ganesh Nagar
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018.
...Plaintiff
Vs.
1.Union of India, Through its Secretary Central Secretariat, New Delhi.
2. Regional Passport Officer, Bhikaji Cama Place, R.K. Puram, New Delhi.
...Defendants Suit for Declaration and Mandatory Injunction Date of institution : 28.10.2013 Date of Reserving Judgment/Order : 21.05.2014 Date of decision : 03.06.2014 Judgment :-
1. In the present suit, the plaintiff has prayed for a decree of declaration to the effect that the date of birth of the plaintiff is 05.08.1964 and a decree of mandatory injunction directing the CS No. 95/13 Sunil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr. 1/20 defendants to change the date of birth in the passport of the plaintiff to 05.08.1964.
2. The brief facts, as given in the plaint, are as follows:-
i) The plaintiff had applied to the Regional Passport Office, New Delhi for issuance of a passport and submitted the following documents along with it:- Order dated 27.01.2003 of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rampura, Delhi-110035;
Birth certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi; A computer generated birth certificate bearing no. B2811869; School certificate; Ration card; Voter identity card; Aadhar card and PAN card.
ii) In pursuance thereof, the Regional Passport Office issued a passport bearing no. H2339790, dated 19.12.2008, with a validity period up to 18.12.2018.
iii) At the the time of securing a visa to visit his brother in the United States of America (USA), the plaintiff noticed a discrepancy in his passport as to his date of birth, which was mentioned as 05.10.1964 instead of 05.08.1964. The plaintiff, thereafter, approached the defendant no. 2 for effecting a correction in his date of birth, inadvertently mentioned in his passport as 05.10.1964 instead of 05.08.1964. Despite efforts and repeated visits/requests made to the defendant no. 2 to make the said correction, the defendant no. 2 did not make the CS No. 95/13 Sunil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr. 2/20 necessary correction. A written representation in this regard, vide letter dated 01.07.2013, was also made by the plaintiff to the defendant no.2. Subsequently, the defendant no.2 informed the plaintiff that he needs to obtain a declaratory order from the concerned Court as to the date of birth of the plaintiff being 05.08.1964. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit to obtain the declaratory order.
3. Summons of the suit were issued to the defendants. On the date fixed for hearing, Mr. Giriraj Sharma, LDC, Regional Passport Office, New Delhi, appeared on behalf of the defendants and filed their written statement on 18.12.2013. Various preliminary objections have been raised in the written statement. It is alleged, inter alia, that the plaintiff has filed the present suit without any cause of action against the defendants on the ground that the defendants cannot effect any change/correction in the date of birth of the plaintiff in the absence of a declaratory order obtained from the court of the competent jurisdiction. Reference is made to two circulars, bearing no. VI/401/2/5/2001, dated 29.10.2007 and 15.01.2008, issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, which provides that the date of birth of an applicant cannot be changed unless a declaratory order for purposes of correction/change in the date of birth mentioned in the passport of the applicant is obtained from the court of the competent jurisdiction. Further, the plea of the defendant no. 2 is that they had issued the passport to the plaintiff on the basis of the documents submitted by him and which mentioned his date of birth as CS No. 95/13 Sunil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr. 3/20 05.10.1964.
4. Replication was filed on behalf of the plaintiff on 29.01.2014 denying the allegations/averments made in the written statement.
5. On completion of pleadings of the parties, this Court framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration to the effect that the date of birth of the plaintiff is 05.08.1964? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to effect a change in the date of birth mentioned in the passport of the plaintiff to 05.08.1964? OPP
3. Whether the present suit is barred by the principles of res judicata and is thus liable to be dismissed? OPD
4. Whether the present suit is time barred? OPD
5. Whether the present suit has been filed without any cause of action against the defendants? OPD
6. Whether the suit is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure for non-joinder and mis-
joinder of parties? OPD Relief
6. Both the parties were given an opportunity to lead their evidence.
CS No. 95/13 Sunil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr. 4/20
7. In order to substantiate his case, the plaintiff stepped into the witness box and tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit, Exhibit PW-1/A. In addition, the plaintiff relied upon and placed on record the following documents:-
- A copy of the written representation dated 01.07.2013, made to defendant no. 1 for correction of his date of birth mentioned in his passport, Exhibit PW-1/1;
- A copy of receipt dated 29.01.2013, issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Mark 'A';
- A copy of the order dated 27.01.2013, issued by the office of Sub- Divisional Magistrate, directing that the date of birth of the plaintiff be entered in the municipal records, Mark 'B';
- A copy of the birth certificate of the plaintiff dated 29.01.2003, Exhibit PW-1/4;
- A copy of the computerized birth certificate of the plaintiff dated 13.01.2009, Exhibit PW-1/5;
- A copy of the school leaving certificate of the plaintiff dated 15.03.1982, Exhibit PW-1/6;
- A copy of the ration card of the father of the plaintiff dated 28.03.2005, Exhibit PW-1/7;
- A copy of the election identity card of the plaintiff dated 07.11.2007, Mark 'C' (initially marked as Exhibit PW-1/8);
- A copy of the e-aadhar card of the plaintiff dated 06.05.2013, Exhibit PW-1/9;
- A copy of the PAN card of the plaintiff, Exhibit PW-1/10; and
- A copy of the passport of the plaintiff dated 19.12.2008, CS No. 95/13 Sunil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr. 5/20 Exhibit PW1/11.
In his affidavit, PW-1 deposed on the same lines as stated in the plaint. No other witness was examined by the plaintiff. The Learned Counsel for the plaintiff closed plaintiff's evidence by way of a separate statement.
8. The defendants lead their evidence and placed on record two documents namely, copy of the circulars dated 29.10.2007 and 15.01.2008, issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, on the subject, change of date of birth and place of birth in passports, Exhibit D-1 and Exhibit D-2. No other evidence was led by the defendants and the Learned Counsel for the defendants closed evidence by way of a separate statement.
9. Arguments were advanced by the Learned Counsel for the plaintiff and the defendants. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff commenced his arguments by reasoning that ordinarily the date of birth or other particulars mentioned in a passport are not noticed or gone through by a lay person in the day to day affairs, except when the need arises to use the passport. He submitted that in the present case, the plaintiff, at the time of applying for a visa to visit USA, noticed the mistake in his passport as to his date of birth and then applied to the passport office for the necessary change. Further, Learned Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff has placed on record proof of his date of birth being as 05.08.1964 and no objection has been raised as to its admissibility by the defendants. He further argued CS No. 95/13 Sunil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr. 6/20 that the circular, Exhibit D-2, relied upon by the defendants, supports the case of the plaintiff and that if the defendants had effected the change in the passport of the plaintiff in accordance with the circular, the plaintiff would not have been relegated to institute the present suit. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff pressed for heavy costs on the defendants for failure to comply with their duty to effect the change in the passport of the plaintiff.
10. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the defendant refuted the contentions raised by the Learned Counsel for the plaintiff and argued that the facts of the present case are not covered by the said circular, Exhibit D-2. He reiterated the plea taken in the written statement that it is on the basis of the documents/affidavit submitted by the plaintiff, at the time of applying for issuance of the passport, that the passport was issued with the date of birth mentioned as 05.10.1964. Learned Counsel for the defendant further argued that the plaintiff has failed to show as to when it came to his knowledge that the date of birth mentioned in his passport is incorrect and in view thereof, the present suit is time barred and be dismissed with costs. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff refuted the same and submitted that the particulars as to when the cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff has been clearly stated in paragraph no. 6 of the affidavit of the plaintiff.
11.The submissions made on behalf of the both the parties have been considered and the record of the case has been thoroughly perused. The issue-wise findings of this Court are as follows:-
CS No. 95/13 Sunil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr. 7/20 Issue No. 1:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration to the effect that the date of birth of the plaintiff is 05.08.1964?
OPP
12. A relief of declaration is governed by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as, "Specific Relief Act"), which reads as follows:-
"Discretion of court as to declaration of status or right.- Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief:
Provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so.
Explanation.- A trustee of property is a "person interested to deny"
a title adverse to the title of someone who is not in existence, and for whom, if in existence, he would be a trustee."
13.In other words, the plaintiff must satisfy the following three essentials for obtaining a relief under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act:- (1) That the plaintiff is entitled to a legal character at the time of the suit, or to any right as to any property; (2) That the CS No. 95/13 Sunil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr. 8/20 defendant has denied these or he is interested in denying that character or right of the plaintiff; and (3) That the plaintiff is not in a position to ask for relief consequential upon declaration.
14. In the present suit, the plaintiff seeks a declaratory order as to his date of birth being 05.08.1964. The burden of proving this is on the plaintiff. In order to prove his date of birth, the plaintiff has placed on record his birth certificate, issued by Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, dated 29.01.2003, mentioning his date of birth as 05.08.1964, Exhibit PW-1/4; his birth certificate, issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, dated 13.01.2009, mentioning his date of birth as 05.08.1964, Exhibit PW-1/5; his school leaving certificate, dated 15.03.1982, mentioning his date of birth as 05.08.1964, Exhibit PW-1/6; his election identity card, dated 07.11.2007, mentioning his date of birth as 05.08.1964 Mark 'C' (initially marked as Exhibit PW-1/8); his e-aadhar card, dated 06.05.2013, mentioning his date of birth as 05.08.1964, Exhibit PW-1/9; his PAN card, mentioning his date of birth as 05.08.1964, Exhibit PW-1/10. On perusal of Exhibit PW-1/4, Exhibit PW-1/5, Exhibit PW-1/6, Exhibit PW-1/9 and Exhibit PW-1/10, issued by various authorities, during the period between the years 1982 to 2013, the date of birth of the plaintiff is shown to be 05.08.1964, except his passport in question, Exhibit PW-1/11, which mentions his date of birth as 05.10.1964. Evidently, none of the documents produced by the plaintiff, in proof of his date of birth, records/mentions his date of birth as 05.10.1964. On the other hand, even during cross-examination of PW-1 by the Learned Counsel for CS No. 95/13 Sunil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr. 9/20 the defendants, there is nothing to suggest or infer from the statement of PW-1 that his date of birth in the documents placed on record by him is falsely/incorrectly mentioned therein as 05.08.1964. Further, the defendants have not challenged the veracity or authenticity of any of the above referred documents produced by the plaintiff in proof of his date of birth. On considering the evidence on record, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff has been able to establish that his date of birth is 05.08.1964. Thus, the first requirement of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act stands satisfied.
15.The second requirement that has to be established by the plaintiff is that the defendant has denied the plaintiff's right to his legal character, that is, the right to have his correct date of birth recorded/entered in his passport. PW-1 has deposed in his affidavit, Exhibit PW-1/A, that on noticing the discrepancy as to his date of birth in the passport, Exhibit PW-1/11, PW-1 approached the defendant no. 2 and made a written representation, Exhibit PW-1/1, to effect the necessary change in his passport. In paragraph no. 7 and 8 of the written statement and during admission/denial of documents, the defendants have admitted the said fact of having received the said letter, Exhibit PW-1/1, from the plaintiff. Further, it is the case of the defendants that a declaratory order from a court of competent jurisdiction is required for rectifying/changing the date of birth in the passport and the defendant no. 2 cannot rectify/change the same. Thus, it can be stated that the defendant no. 2 in effect refused to make the necessary correction in the plaintiff's CS No. 95/13 Sunil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr. 10/20 passport as to his date of the birth being 05.08.1964. Though it has not been specifically admitted that the defendants denied the right of the plaintiff of having his correct date of birth being mentioned in his passport, the stand taken by the defendant no. 2 of its inability to make the said change/rectification, has inevitably amounted to denial of the said right of the plaintiff. The question as to whether the defendant no.2 had rightly or wrongly turned down the request of the plaintiff does not require to be answered at this stage. Thus, from the above, it can be concluded that the second requirement of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act also has been established by the plaintiff.
16. Lastly, it is to be shown that the plaintiff is in a position to seek consequential relief. The phrase 'further relief' referred to in the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act is the relief to which the plaintiff is necessarily entitled on the basis of declaration of the title/right of the plaintiff. For that it is pertinent to look at the prayer clause in the plaint. In the plaint, the plaintiff has sought a relief of mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants directing them to change the date of birth in his passport to 05.08.1964. The question whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction shall be decided separately, however, for the present issue, it is to be seen whether the plaintiff has shown that he is in a position to seek the said relief. The relief of mandatory injunction cannot be sought in the absence of the relief of declaration. It is clear that without a declaratory order as to the date of birth of the plaintiff being 05.08.1964, the relief of CS No. 95/13 Sunil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr. 11/20 mandatory injunction cannot be granted and thus it is consequential to the grant of relief of declaration, which the plaintiff has sought in the plaint. Thus, the third requirement of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act also is satisfied.
17.In view of the above findings, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff has been able to establish that he is entitled to the relief of declaration that his date of birth is 05.08.1964. Thus, the issue no.1. is decided in the affirmative.
Issue No. 2:-
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to effect a change in the date of birth mentioned in the passport of the plaintiff to 05.08.1964? OPP
18.The burden of proving this issue is on the plaintiff. Once it has been proved that the date of birth of the plaintiff is 05.08.1964, it is to be shown that the date of birth, on the basis of the documents submitted by the plaintiff, at the time of applying for the passport, mentioned his date of birth as 05.08.1964 and the defendant no. 2 had inadvertently recorded an incorrect date of birth in the passport of the plaintiff, which the defendant no. 2 is liable to change/rectify.
19. It is pleaded in the plaint that the date of birth entered in the plaintiff's passport, Exhibit PW-1/11, has been inadvertently recorded as 05.10.1964 instead of 05.08.1964 by the defendant no.
CS No. 95/13 Sunil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr. 12/20
2. PW-1 deposed in his affidavit that at the time of applying to the Passport Office, for issuance of his passport, the plaintiff submitted supporting documents in proof of his date of birth, including Exhibit PW-1/4, Exhibit PW-1/5, Exhibit PW-1/6, Exhibit PW-1/9 and Exhibit PW-1/10, all which mentioned his date of birth as 05.08.1964, however, the date of birth in the passport issued by the defendant no. 2 is 05.10.1964. The documents which the plaintiff states to have submitted to the Passport Office/defendant no. 2 at the relevant time has not been disputed or denied by the defendants. On the other hand, the defendants have admitted in their written statement that the passport of the plaintiff, Exhibit PW-1/11, was issued by the defendant no. 2, on the basis of the supporting documents submitted by the plaintiff/applicant at the time of applying for issuance of the said passport. However, it is the case of the defendants that the said documents mentioned the date of birth of the plaintiff as 05.10.1964. The onus is now on the defendants to show that the documents submitted by the plaintiff, at the time of applying for the passport, mentioned his date of birth as 05.10.1964 and not 05.08.1964. Which were those documents submitted by the plaintiff in the Passport Office/defendant no. 2, while applying for issuance of the passport, showing the date of birth of the plaintiff as 05.10.1964 instead of 05.08.1964, have neither been produced in evidence nor specified by the defendants in their written statement. Further, even during cross-examination of PW-1, the testimony of PW-1 has not been controverted to show or suggest that the documents submitted by the plaintiff in proof of his date of birth as 05.08.1964, at the time of applying for the passport, CS No. 95/13 Sunil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr. 13/20 were not the same as available in the records of the defendant no. 2. The defendants have failed to establish that the documents submitted by the plaintiff along with his application form at the time of applying for issuance of his passport mentioned the date of birth as 05.10.1964 instead of as 05.08.1964. It is the duty of a party to produce all relevant documents and its best evidence to assist the Court in its quest for truth, however, despite all the records being in the possession and power of the defendant no. 2, the same were not produced. Even otherwise, the Court exercising its discretion, directed the defendants to produce the application form and the documents submitted along with the application form by the plaintiff at the time of applying to the Passport Office for issuance of his passport, Exhibit PW-1/11. The defendant no. 2 produced certified copies of all the documents maintained in their record, including the application form and all the documents submitted along with it by the plaintiff at the time of applying for issuance of his passport in the year 2008. On perusal of the said application form and the documents, the date of birth of the plaintiff is mentioned as 05.08.1964 and not 05.10.1964. Without considering or relying on the said documents produced by the defendants, at the direction of his Court, the plaintiff has been able to satisfactorily establish that the documents submitted by him at the time of applying for the passport in proof of his date of birth mentioned the date of birth as 05.08.1964.
20.In view of the above, it can be stated that the defendant no. 2 in most probability had inadvertently or mistakenly entered the date of CS No. 95/13 Sunil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr. 14/20 birth in the plaintiff's passport as 05.10.1964 instead of 05.08.1964. At this stage, attention is drawn to the contention of the defendants that based on the circulars, issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, Exhibit D-1 and Exhibit D-2, the defendant no. 2 cannot rectify/change the date of the birth of the applicant in his passport without a declaratory order from a court of competent jurisdiction. These circulars have been issued on the subject, change of date of birth and place of birth in passports, and circulated to all the Passport Issuing Authorities (PIA). On perusal of the said circulars, it appears that Exhibit D-1 is the circular applicable to the facts of the present case. The relevant portion of the said circular is reproduced below:-
"(b) Where an applicant claims clerical/technical mistake in the entry relating to birth/place of birth in the passport and asks for rectification/correction:- In all the cases the documents produced earlier as proof of date of birth/place of birth at the time of issue of the passport be perused (if not already destroyed) by PIA. In case, it is a clerical mistake either by the applicant or the PIA, date/place of birth correction may be allowed by issue of fresh passport booklet;
in the former case, by charging fee for fresh passport and in the latter 'gratis'. There is no need for a declaratory order in such cases."
21. In light of the said circular, the defendant no. 2 should have allowed the necessary correction in the entry relating to the plaintiff's date of birth and issued a fresh passport without relegating the party to institute the present suit for declaration. Further, it was not a case of CS No. 95/13 Sunil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr. 15/20 conflicting documents produced by the applicant in proof of his date of birth.
22. In view of the above findings, this Court is of the view that it was upon the defendant no. 2 to make the necessary correction/rectification and issue fresh passport to the plaintiff as per the instructions contained in the Exhibit D-1, which has not been done. Accordingly, the issue no. 2 is decided in the affirmative.
Issue no. 3:-
3. Whether the present suit is barred by the principles of res judicata and is thus liable to be dismissed? OPD
23.The onus of proving this issue is on the defendants. It is well-known that the plea of res judicata is a mixed question of law and fact. It has to be specifically pleaded and the party relying on the principle of res judicata should place before the court all material particulars which would be sufficient to give a finding whether the particular case is barred by the principles of res judicata. The defendants have raised the contention that the plaintiff had filed a similar suit in the Court of Learned Senior Civil Judge, Tis Hazaari Courts, Delhi, which was dismissed as withdrawn on the ground of maintainability of the suit. No other material particulars have been specifically pleaded by the defendants to enable this Court to reach a finding on this issue. This Court is of the view that the defendants have failed to discharge its burden to prove the applicability of the plea res judicata in the present suit. Accordingly, this issue is decided in the CS No. 95/13 Sunil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr. 16/20 negative.
Issue no. 4:-
4. Whether the present suit is time barred? OPD
24. The burden of proving this issue is on the defendants. It is alleged that the suit is highly time barred as the date of birth certificate was issued to the plaintiff by the Registrar, Births & Deaths, Government of NCT of Delhi way back in the year 29.01.2003. It is not in controversy that the passport, Exhibit PW-1/11 was issued by the defendant no. 2 in the year 2008. There is no time period presecribed by law within which a person must apply to the passport authority for issuance of his/her passport. Thus, it cannot be said that the factum of issuance of the birth certificate by the Registrar, Births & Deaths, Government of NCT of Delhi on 29.01.2003 would bar the plaintiff to apply for a passport after a particular period of time. Thus, the contention of the defendants is without merit. Learned Counsel for the defendants has also argued that the plaintiff has failed to disclose a particular period/time when he discovered the discrepancy in his passport and that the suit was time barred. In his affidavit, the plaintiff has deposed that at the time of securing his visa to visit his brother abroad, the plaintiff noticed the said discrepancy and approached the defendant no. 2 in the month of March, 2013 for effecting the necessary change/rectification. Further, in this regard, the plaintiff also made a written representation, dated 01.07.2013, to the defendant no. 2, however, his request went in vain. It is then that the plaintiff instituted the CS No. 95/13 Sunil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr. 17/20 present suit for declaration and consequential relief. The right of the plaintiff to bring a suit for relief of declaration would be computed from the date the right to sue accrues. In the present case, it would accrue when the plaintiff's right to get his correct date of birth entered in his passport was denied by the defendant. It is admitted that a written representation was made by the plaintiff to the defendant no. 2 on 01.07.2013 and the present suit has been instituted on 26.10.2013. Nothing has been shown to establish that the suit has been filed beyond the period of limitation and is time barred. The defendants have failed to discharge their burden. Thus, this issue is also decided in the negative.
Issue no. 5:-
5. Whether the present suit has been filed without any cause of action against the defendants? OPD
25.The burden of proving this issue is also on the defendants. It is alleged that no cause of action arises in favour of the plaintiff as the defendants cannot change/rectify the date of birth in the passport of the plaintiff without a declaratory order of the court of competent jurisdiction. The circulars relied upon in this regard by the plaintiff have been perused and it has been held that Exhibit-D1 is applicable to the facts of the present case and that the defendants should have corrected the date of birth in the plaintiff's passport without relegating the party to institute the present suit. Thus, this contention of the defendants is without merit and the defendants have failed to discharge the onus of proving that the plaintiff has no cause of CS No. 95/13 Sunil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr. 18/20 action as against the defendants. This issue is also decided in the negative.
Issue no. 6:-
6.Whether the suit is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties? OPD
26.The issue is whether the suit is bad in law for non-joinder and mis- joinder of parties and liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for rejection of plaint. A plaint must be rejected in the cases falling under the clauses from (a) to (f) of the said rule. Non-joinder or mis-joinder of parties is not a ground for rejection of the plaint. The law in this regard is well settled. A procedural objection to the impleading of parties or to the joinder of causes of action or the frame of the suit, could be successfully urged only as a procedural objection which may enable the Court either to permit the continuance of the suit as it is or to direct the plaintiff or plaintiffs to elect to proceed with a part of the suit or even to try the causes of action joined in the suit as separate suits. In this regard, reference is made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prem Lala Nahata and Anr. v. Chandi Prasad Sikaria, AIR 2007 SC 1247. Even otherwise, the defendants have failed to establish how the defendants no. 1 and 2 were not the proper or necessary party in the suit. Thus, this issue is also decided in the negative.
CS No. 95/13 Sunil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr. 19/20
27. Having given a finding on all the issues framed by this Court, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs claimed.
28. Accordingly, a decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, declaring the date of birth of the plaintiff as 05.08.1964. Further, on the plaintiff applying for a fresh passport, the defendant no. 2 is directed to issue the passport with the correct date of birth, within a period of two months from the date of the application.
29. Before disposing of the suit, it is observed that in the present facts and circumstances, had the defendant no. 2 made the necessary correction/rectification and issued a fresh passport to the plaintiff, the plaintiff would not have to be relegated to institute the present suit and pursue it. This has resulted in unnecessary wastage of the time and costs of the parties and of the Court. Thus, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff.
30.Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
31. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Pronounced in Open Court today June 3, 2014 (SALONI SINGH) Civil Judge-03/PHC/NEW DELHI 03.06.2014.
CS No. 95/13 Sunil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr. 20/20