Delhi District Court
Sumat Prasad Jain vs Central Board Of on 26 March, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL :
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : EAST : KARKARDOOMA COURT :
DELHI
Suit No. 356/10
Unique Case Identification No. 02402C0328242010
SUMAT PRASAD JAIN
S/o Shri Shital Prashad Jain,
R/o 26/58A, Gali No.11,
Vishwas Nagar, Delhi 110032 ....Plaintiff
Vs.
1. CENTRAL BOARD OF
SECONDARY EDUCATION,
(Through its Secretary),
Service to be effected at :
Plots No.1 & 2, Institutional Area,
I. P. Extension, Delhi 110092.
2. THE PRINCIPAL,
Vanasthali Public School,
(Formerly at Madhu Vihar, Delhi),
Sector III, Vasundhra,
Ghaziabad (U.P.) ....Defendants
A. Date of Institution of Suit : 23/11/2010
B. Reserved for Judgment : 17/03/2012
C. Date of Judgment : 26/03/2012
(Anand Swaroop Aggarwal)
Date: 26/03/2012 SCJCumRC (East) Delhi
Suit No. 356/10 Page 1/21
D. Final Order : SUIT DECREED.
SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION.
J U D G M E N T
1. Prayer clause in this suit reads as under: "P R A Y E R:
(i) It is, therefore, prayed that the suit of the be decreed, declaring the name/Entry of Shri S. P. Jain (Sumat Prashad Jain), being shown against the column of Father/Guardian in the certificates as well as MarkSheet of Secondary and Senior Secondary Examinations issued by Defendant No.1 to Shri Rishabh Jain, bearing Roll No. 6109627 (X examination in the year 2006) and Roll No. 6209501 (for the examination of XII in the year 2008), as invalid, inapplicable, inappropriate and redundant. (Copies of the Certificates and MarkSheets are being placed on record as Annexure A, B, C & D).
(ii) It is further prayed that defendant No.1 be directed by way of a mandatory injunction to amend and/or remove/delete the entry (i.e. Name S. P. Jain), the mistake, accordingly and issue fresh original certificates and MarkSheets for having passed the (Anand Swaroop Aggarwal) Date: 26/03/2012 SCJCumRC (East) Delhi Suit No. 356/10 Page 2/21 Secondary and Senior Secondary final examinations in the years 2006 and 2008 respectively by Shri Rishabh Jain with Roll Nos. as mentioned in the preceding para, by deleting the name of Shri S. P. Jain (Sumat Prashad Jain) and substituting the name of Smt. Madhulika Jain, being the single parent/divorcee, against the column Father/Guardian in both the certificates/and both the MarkSheets mentioned above and shown in Marks/documents A, B, C & D. Defendant No.2 be also directed to conduct the necessary amendments and/or deletions in their records accordingly.
Any other and further relief as this Hon'ble Court may deed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, be also granted in favour of the plaintiff."
2. CASE OF PLAINTIFF :
In brief case of plaintiff is that plaintiff's daughter, Smt. Madhulika Jain, a divorcee, and her only son, Rishabh Jain, have been residing with plaintiff since September 1991, after Smt. Madhulika Jain's divorce being granted by a Family Court of Meerut (U.P.) on 2.5.1995 by Shri S. K. Bhatt, the then Judge, Family Court, Meerut (U.P.) in Suit No. 677/94 in the petition titled as Rajiv Jain (Ist Party) and Smt. Madhulika Jain (IInd Party). As per plaintiff since even (Anand Swaroop Aggarwal) Date: 26/03/2012 SCJCumRC (East) Delhi Suit No. 356/10 Page 3/21 earlier than 2.5.1995 (the date of decision/decree), both Smt. Madhulika Jain and her minor son, Rishabh Jain, have all along been continuously looked after, maintained and all their interests including their wellbeing are being taken care of by plaintiff, for all intents and purposes, there being no body else to discharge such duties. Further case of plaintiff is that Rishabh Jain S/o Smt. Madhulika Jain (Dhevta/ Grandson of plaintiff) was admitted in IX Class in Vanasthali Public School, Madhu Vihar, East Delhi (Defendant No.2), which was sealed by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi sometime in 200708 and since then, the said school (Defendant No.2) and its office resumed functioning at the present address at Sector III, Vasundhra, Ghaziabad (U.P). Rishabh Jain passed All India Secondary School Exam. of CBSE from Vanasthali Public School, Mayur Vihar, Delhi and his Senior Secondary School Examination of CBSE from Vanasthali Public School, Mayur Vihar III, Delhi, respectively. Both the schools of Madhu Vihar as well as Mayur Vihar premises are now being managed and run by the Management from the Ghaziabad premises, address as shown by way of Defendant No.2 in the title of the suit.
Further, as alleged, on getting certificates and MarkSheets from defendant no.1 after having passed X and XII Final (Anand Swaroop Aggarwal) Date: 26/03/2012 SCJCumRC (East) Delhi Suit No. 356/10 Page 4/21 Examinations (i.e. Secondary and Senior Secondary Examinations), a bonafide and inadvertent mistake has been detected now, that both the certificates and Mark Sheets of the above examinations issued by defendant no.1, mention of name of the plaintiff Shri S. P. Jain (Sumat Prashad Jain), against the column Father/Guardian of the student/examinee, Rishabh Jain. As per plaintiff, plaintiff is the most near and dear relative of student, Rishabh Jain, being his maternal grand father and father of his mother, Smt. Madhulika Jain, a divorcee, and/or single parent and, therefore, at the time of filling up the forms of final examinations of Xth and XIIth classes conducted by defendant no.1, plaintiff's name must have been given in the filled up forms against the column Father/Guardain's name, but the real fact being that the plaintiff is father of Rishabh Jain's mother, Smt. Madhulika Jain and Guardian (in common parlance) of both Smt. Madhulika Jain (married and divorcee daughter) as well as her son, Rishabh Jain, despite she being the natural mother/single parent and guardian of her own son Rishabh Jain. The mistake of the plaintiff's name being shown as father/guardian of Rishabh Jain is a bonafide mistake of record at school level (defendant no.2) and also at CBSE level (defendant no.1) and the plaintiff has no ulterior motive and/or (Anand Swaroop Aggarwal) Date: 26/03/2012 SCJCumRC (East) Delhi Suit No. 356/10 Page 5/21 adverse interest in such mistake in the wrong recording perpetuated forever which is likely to prove prejudicial and detrimental to the interests of the plaintiff's daughter and his grandson (Dhevta) Rishabh Jain. Hence this suit.
3. DEFENDANTS CASE : Summons for settlement of issues were ordered to be issued for service of both the defendants. On 22/12/2010 Mr. Om Prakash Jain S/o Late Sh. Bal Mukund Jain, Manager of defendant no. 2 had appeared before the court alongwith authority letter dated 22/12/2010 signed by principal of defendant no. 2 school but defendant no. 2 was proceeded against exparte on 18/02/2011 on account of non appearance for and on behalf of defendant no. 2 on the said date and none appeared for defendant no.2 on any subsequent date till today. Defendant no. 1 has, however, contested the suit of plaintiff taking the stand that Central Board of Secondary Education is a society, which was created pursuant to the Government Notifications and is controlled by the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources and, further, it can sue and be sued through its Secretary only. As alleged, CBSE frames its own rules and is governed by them and defendant has its rules and regulations regarding change of name. As per (Anand Swaroop Aggarwal) Date: 26/03/2012 SCJCumRC (East) Delhi Suit No. 356/10 Page 6/21 defendant, suit of plaintiff is not tenable in view of the amended rule 69.1 (ii) of the Examination Bye Laws of the Central Board of Secondary Education. Also defendant has relied upon judgment/order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sajjad Barakat Vs. CBSE in WP(C) No.5967/2008 as a preliminary objection to the suit of plaintiff. On Merrits stand of defendant is that plaintiff had himself filled the form in his own handwriting under his own signatures and gave the name S.P. Jain and same was also incorporated by defendant no.1 in their records as per the rules. Further, as per defendant, there is no change or any mistake in as much as Sh. S.P. Jain has been given as the name against the column of Father/Guardian and the same has also been signed by the plaintiff himself. As alleged, plaintiff himself signed these entries to be correct and therefore it is not open to plaintiff to state that same should be changed. At last defendant no. 1 has prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.
4. REPLICATION : Plaintiff has filed replication to WS of defendant no. 1 wherein plaintiff has taken the stand that plaintiff is within his legal rights to seek relief as per notification dated 16.10.2007 amending Rule 69 (1)
(ii) of the Byelaws published by Central Board of Secondary (Anand Swaroop Aggarwal) Date: 26/03/2012 SCJCumRC (East) Delhi Suit No. 356/10 Page 7/21 Education in its Book titled as "Examination Byelaws" with upto date amendments. As per plaintiff, suit is maintainable as being supported by CBSE rules with latest amendments particularly by virtue of amendments vide Notification dated 16.10.2007. The correction in name in the form of deletion of the plaintiff's name from the column of Father/Guardian is essential so that no further confusion may be perpetuated in the academic records of Master Rishabh Jain and any likely damage or prejudice may be averted by necessary correction/ deletion as prayed. Further, as per plaintiff, the judgment/order Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of Sajjad Barakat Vs. CBSE in WP(C) No.5967/2008 is not applicable in this case since the relevant documents as per requirements of the CBSE will be supplied to the defendant no.1 as and when called for and the plaintiff is not guilty of noncompliance of the directions of defendant no.1 as was held in the said judgment/order. As per plaintiff, suit of the plaintiff stands on a solid base of its own and it is most likely to be decreed as per CBSE rules referred to above. On merits plaintiff has reaffirmed the averments made in plaint.
5. ISSUES: Vide order dated 05/10/2011 following issues were framed : (Anand Swaroop Aggarwal) Date: 26/03/2012 SCJCumRC (East) Delhi Suit No. 356/10 Page 8/21
1. Whether plaintiff name was written in the filled up form against the column of father/guardian's name ? OPP.
2. Whether mistake of plaintiff's name being shown as father/guardian's of Rishab Jain is a bonafide mistake of record on school level (i.e. defendant no.2) and also at CBSE level (i.e. defendant no.1) ? OPP.
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for declaration as prayed for ? OPP.
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for mandatory injunction as prayed for ? OPP.
5. Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable qua relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for against defendant no.1 in view of amended rule 69.1 (ii) of the examination by laws ? OPD.
6. Relief.
6. EVIDENCE : Plaintiff has appeared in the witness box as PW1 Mr. Sumat Prasad Jain and has also examined PW2 Mr. Ashu Gupta from Vivekanand International School and PW3 Mr. Yogesh Jain accountant in Vanasthali Public School, Sector 3, Vasundra, (Anand Swaroop Aggarwal) Date: 26/03/2012 SCJCumRC (East) Delhi Suit No. 356/10 Page 9/21 Ghaziabad. PE was closed on 02/03/2012 on the statement of plaintiff. Vide order dated 02/03/2012 ld. counsel for defendant had submitted that he does not want to lead DE provided court takes judicial notice of notification dated 03/05/2011 issued by CBSE attested copy of which was filed on record on 16/01/2012. In reply to this ld. counsel for plaintiff submitted that this court is very much within its power to take judicial notice of this notification. The said Notification is marked as Ex. X for identification purposes. As such case was adjourned for final arguments.
7. ARGUMENTS : I have heard Sh. M.P. Sharma, Advocate for plaintiff and Sh. Ashok Kumar, Advocate for defendant no. 1. Defendant no. 2 is already exparte written submissions have also been filed by plaintiff. Ld. counsel for plaintiff has relied upon case laws reported as (i) American Express Bank Ltd. Vs. Calcutta Steel Co. and others (1993) 2 SCC 199; (ii) M. P. Mathur & Ors. Vs. D.T.C. & Ors. AIR 2007 SC 414; (iii) M/s. India Navigation Co., Gurgaon Vs. Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation AIR 2006 Punjab and Haryana 29; and (iv) Rashmeet Kaur Kohli (minor) Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) AIR 2007 Delhi 46. Material on judicial (Anand Swaroop Aggarwal) Date: 26/03/2012 SCJCumRC (East) Delhi Suit No. 356/10 Page 10/21 file perused.
8. My issuewise findings are as under : ISSUE NO.1 Whether plaintiff name was written in the filled up form against the column of father/guardian's name ? OPP.
ISSUE NO.2 Whether mistake of plaintiff's name being shown as father/guardian's of Rishab Jain is a bonafide mistake of record on school level (i.e. defendant no.2) and also at CBSE level (i.e. defendant no.1) ? OPP.
I shall be dealing with these issues under a common discussion being interconnected. There is no denial about the relationship of maternal grand father and grandson between plaintiff and Mr. Rishabh Jain. Even as per records of CBSE, Ms. Madhulika Jain is mother of Mr. Rishabh Jain. Ms. Madhulika Jain divorced from her husband Mr. Rajeev Jain vide Judgment Ex. PW1/2. In the said judgment as well there is reference to one son having been born out of wedlock of Mr. Rajeev Jain and Ms. Madhulika Jain. Ration Card Ex. PW1/3 also shows relationship of father and daughter between plaintiff and Ms. Madhulika Jain and of maternal grandfather and grandson ("Nati") between plaintiff and Mr. Rishabh Jain. Further School Leaving (Anand Swaroop Aggarwal) Date: 26/03/2012 SCJCumRC (East) Delhi Suit No. 356/10 Page 11/21 Certificate Ex. PW1/4 mentions name of plaintiff as Guardian and the word "Father" in the parentage column has been struck off in Ex. PW1/4. Similarly in Admission Form Ex. PW1/5 in the column of "Father's Name", name of plaintiff is mentioned as "Guardian" and, also, Ex. PW1/5 has been signed by plaintiff as "Legal Guardian". However, Admissions and withdrawal Register Ex. PW1/14 mentions the name of plaintiff against column of "Father's Name". But what is pertinent to note is that in Admissions and Withdrawal Register Ex. PW1/14 there is no scope of mentioning the name of plaintiff as guardian in as much as there is column for mentioning Father's Name only. Obviously, Admissions and Withdrawal Register Ex. PW1/14 must have been filled up keeping in view the contents of Ex. PW1/4 (School Leaving Certificate) and Ex. PW1/05 (Admission Form) which specifically mentions plaintiff as guardian of Master Rishabh Jain and leaves no doubt to make a conclusion that plaintiff is not father of Master Rishabh Jain. Similarly in the records of CBSE, Ex. PW1/11, and Ex. PW1/10, in the second column "Father Name" is to be written and there is no provision for taking a note that name mentioned against this column is not the name of father of a candidate/student but it is the name of guardian of such student. In this (Anand Swaroop Aggarwal) Date: 26/03/2012 SCJCumRC (East) Delhi Suit No. 356/10 Page 12/21 entire background, in my opinion, it can be safely concluded that name of plaintiff has been mentioned as against the column of "Father's Name" in the records of defendant no.1 (CBSE) and defendant no.2 due to bonafide mistakes on the part of defendants. Issues no.1 & 2 are accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff.
ISSUE NO.5 Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable qua relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for against defendant no.1 in view of amended rule 69.1 (ii) of the examination by laws ? OPD.
Rule 69.1 in force (i.e. Existing Rules) on the date of filing of this suit and rule 69.1 coming into force vide Notification Ex. X (i.e. Amended Rules) may be compared/read as under : "The Examination Committee at its meeting held on 21.6.2011 has amended Rule 69.1 of the Examination Bye Laws relating to Change/Correction in Name to read as under. This has also been ratified by the Governing Body at its meeting held on 22.6.2011:
EXISTING RULE AMENDED RULE
i) No change in name/surname once i) Change in name of candidate/ recorded in the Board's records shall be Father/Mother/Guardian once entered made. However, correction in name to in the Board's record at any stage the extent of correction in spelling while studying in Class IX, X, XI, XII errors, factual typographical errors in or thereafter, within a period of ten the candidate's name/surname,father's years from that date of issue of first (Anand Swaroop Aggarwal) Date: 26/03/2012 SCJCumRC (East) Delhi Suit No. 356/10 Page 13/21 name/mother's name or Guardian's such Document shall be considered on name to make it consistent with what is written request of the Candidate (not given in the school record or list of minor) / father / mother / guardian candidates (LOC) submitted by the duly forwarded by the Head of the school may be made. Institution supported by the following documents:
Provided further that in no case, correction shall include alteration, a) Original copy of two newspapers addition, deletion to make it different (daily English/Hindi newspaper at (except as mentioned above from the National level & daily newspaper in a LOC or the school records.) vernacular language circulated in the locality), in which the desired change has been published;
b) Original Affidavit duly sworn before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class/ Metropolitan Magistrate/ Executive Magistrate /Sub Divisional Magistrate;
c) Original copy of Publication in Government Gazette;
d) Payment of prescribed fee.
e) True Copy of admission form filled in by the parents duly updated as per Gazette Notification of desired change, duly attested by the Head of the concerned institution.
g) True Copy of the page of admission and withdrawal register of the school where the entry has been made in respect of candidate showing updation as per Gazette Notification of desired change, duly attested by the Head of the concerned institution.
(Anand Swaroop Aggarwal) Date: 26/03/2012 SCJCumRC (East) Delhi Suit No. 356/10 Page 14/21 ii. Application for correction in ii) Correction in name to the extent of name/surname will be considered only correction in spelling errors, factual within ten years of the date of typographical errors in the declaration of result provided the Candidate's name/ Surname, Father's application of the candidate is name/ Mother's name or Guardian's forwarded with the following name to make it consistent with what documents: is given in the school record or list of candidates (LOC) submitted by the
a) Admission form(s) filled in by the school may be made. parents at the time of admission.
Application for correction in name of
b) The School Leaving Certificate of the Candidate/Father's/Mother's/Guardia previous school submitted by the parents n's name will Be considered only of the candidate at the time of within ten years of the date of admission. declaration of result provided the application of the candidate is
c) Portion of the page of admission and forwarded by the Head of Institution withdrawal register of the school where with the following attested documents. the entry has been made in respect of the candidate. a) True Copy of Admission forms(s) filled in by the parents at the time of admission duly attested by the Head of the concerned institution
b) True Copy of the School Leaving Certificate of the previous school submitted by the parents of the candidate at the time of admission duly attested by the Head of the concerned Institution.
(Anand Swaroop Aggarwal) Date: 26/03/2012 SCJCumRC (East) Delhi Suit No. 356/10 Page 15/21
c) True copy of the portion of the page of admission and withdrawal register of the school where the entry has been made in respect of the candidate, duly attested by the Head of the concerned institution iii. The Board may effect necessary iii. The Board may effect necessary corrections after verification of the corrections after verification of the original records of the school and on original records of the school and on payment of the prescribed fee. payment of the prescribed fee. iv. Rule added iv. In case of change the document(s) will have a caption that may be read as "CHANGE ALLOWED IN NAME/ FATHER'S NAME/MOTHER'S NAME/ GUARDIAN'S NAME FROM ___________ TO ____________ ON(DATED________) AS PER REQUEST OF THE CANDIDATE AND GAZETTE NOTIFICATION NO.
_________ DATED _________."
The procedure for Change in name of the Candidate/ Mother/Father/Guardian shall be allowed by charging a sum of Rs.1,000/ + actual cost of the document concerned. For correction in name, the existing fee will continue. The applications shall be entertained on the basis of request for such changes in the records of Class IX, X, XI, XII only and up to Class VIII the Head of the Institution may consider such requested after completion of formalities indicated in (Anand Swaroop Aggarwal) Date: 26/03/2012 SCJCumRC (East) Delhi Suit No. 356/10 Page 16/21 rule 69.1(i). The Board shall issue revised document(s) on surrendering of the original document(s).
Heads of all the affiliated Schools may kindly take note of the above and make it known to all concerned." In my considered opinion, in the case in hand plaintiff is praying not for change in the name as contemplated in the above rule 69.1(i) and (iv) but is praying for correction in the name only. First of all record of School (defendant no.2) and CBSE, defendant no.1 does not correctly depicts the information as provided by plaintiff vide Ex. PW1/5 (Admission Form) and as provided by previous school of Mr. Rishabh Jain vide Ex. PW1/4 (School Leaving Certificate). Secondly, factually speaking entries made by defendants in their records against the column of "Father's Name" is not correct in as much as plaintiff is not father of Mr. Rishabh Jain but is his maternal grandfather. Also through the present suit plaintiff simply want that mistake committed by defendants in their records be corrected & it is not the case of plaintiff that plaintiff want previous correct information to be changed/replaced by some other information. The stand of defendant no.1 that plaintiff had himself filled the form in his own handwriting under his own signatures is not true as per material on judicial file in as much as Ex. PW1/13 and Ex. PW1/12 nowhere bears the signature (Anand Swaroop Aggarwal) Date: 26/03/2012 SCJCumRC (East) Delhi Suit No. 356/10 Page 17/21 of plaintiff and it bears the signature of Mr. Rishabh Jain only. Also these documents does not appear to have been filled up by plaintiff himself. Information as contained in the records of defendants is not as per information furnished by plaintiff vide Ex. PW1/4 and Ex. PW1/05. Also it is to be noted that plaintiff want that his name appearing against the columns of "Fathers Name" be deleted or corrected as guardian's name as the same has been wrongly mentioned being not consistent with contents of Ex. PW1/4 (School Leaving Certificate) and Ex. PW1/5 (Admission Form). Thus this is a case of plaintiff seeking correction in name so as to make the records of defendants consistent with the school record itself furnished vide Ex. PW1/4 and Ex. PW1/5. Thus case of plaintiff is governed by Rule 69.1(ii) and not Rule 69.1 (i) and (iv). Also plaintiff is governed by existing rule 69.1 (ii) which were in force at the time of filing the suit & not the amended rule 69.1 (ii) coming into force subsequently after 3/05/2011. Defendant no.1 is bound by its own rules and thus is bound to make corrections as prayed for by plaintiff by virtue of provisions of Rule 69.1(ii) and thus issue no.5 is decided against the defendant no.1 and suit is not barred by virtue of provisions of Rule 69.1, Examination Bye Laws made by CBSE. Plaintiff has approached the (Anand Swaroop Aggarwal) Date: 26/03/2012 SCJCumRC (East) Delhi Suit No. 356/10 Page 18/21 court within 10 years from the date of declaration of results of Xth standard. Issue no.5 is accordingly decided against defendant no.1.
ISSUE NO.3 Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for declaration as prayed for ? OPP.
In view of my findings on issue no.1 & 2, undoubtedly name/entry of Sh. S. P. Jain (Sumat Prashad Jain) as shown against column of "Fathers Name" in Ex. PW1/6 and Ex. PW1/8 and as father of Mr. Rishabh Jain with mother as Madhulika Jain in Ex. PW1/7 and Ex. PW1/9, is invalid, in appropriate and redundant in the facts and circumstances of this case and is liable to be declared accordingly. Issue no.4 is, accordingly, decided in favour of plaintiff.
ISSUE NO.4 Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for mandatory injunction as prayed for ? OPP.
In view of my findings on other issues no.1, 2, 3 and 5, this issue deserves to be decided in favour of plaintiff. Order accordingly. RELIEF :
In view of my above findings on various issues, suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants and it is hereby (Anand Swaroop Aggarwal) Date: 26/03/2012 SCJCumRC (East) Delhi Suit No. 356/10 Page 19/21 declared that name/Entry of Sh. S. P. Jain (Sumat Prashad Jain) as existing in Mark Sheet (Ex. PW1/6) & certificate (Ex. PW1/7) issued against Roll No.6109627 for All India Secondary School Examination, 2006 and in Mark Sheet (Ex. PW1/8) and Certificate (Ex. PW1/9) issued against Roll No.6209501 for All India Senior Secondary School Examination, 2008 issued to Mr. Rishabh Jain S/o Ms. Madhulika Jain is invalid, inapplicable, in appropriate and redundant. Further, after having been served with certified copy of this judgment and Admission Form (Ex. PW1/5), School Leaving Certificate (Ex. PW1/4) and Admission & withdrawal Register (Ex. PW1/14) and surrender of original mark sheets and certificates in question, defendant no.1 is directed to issue fresh Mark Sheets and Certificates against abovesaid Mark Sheets and Certificates by deleting the name of plaintiff S. P. Jain from the said Mark Sheets/Certificates and mentioning the name of Ms. Madhulika Jain only as mother of Mr. Rishabh Jain (Rule 68 kept in mind). Here case of plaintiff is to be governed by provisions of existing Rule 69.1 (ii). Plaintiff, however, shall be liable to pay prescribed fee for this purpose. Defendant no.2 is also directed to carry out necessary amendments in its records and mention plaintiff as guardian of Mr. (Anand Swaroop Aggarwal) Date: 26/03/2012 SCJCumRC (East) Delhi Suit No. 356/10 Page 20/21 Rishabh Jain & not as his father. Parties to bear their own cost. Decree sheet be prepared. File be consigned to RR.
Pronounced in the open court.
26/03/2012
(Anand Swaroop Aggarwal)
SCJ/East/KKD/Delhi
(Anand Swaroop Aggarwal)
Date: 26/03/2012 SCJCumRC (East) Delhi
Suit No. 356/10 Page 21/21