Delhi District Court
Manjeet Singh vs Regional Passport Office on 1 October, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. SALONI SINGH, CIVIL JUDGE - 03,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI DISTRICT,
NEW DELHI
CS No.102/13
Unique Case ID no. 02403C0154422013
Manjeet Singh,
S/o, Late Rejender Singh,
R/o, B-43, IInd Floor, Front Side,
Fateh Nagar, Delhi.
...Plaintiff
Vs.
Regional Passport Office
Through Director:
HUDCO Building, Trikoot-3,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi.
...Defendants
Suit for Declaration and Mandatory Injunction
Date of institution : 30.10.2013
Date of Reserving Judgment/Order : 18.09.2014
Date of decision : 01.10.2014
Judgment :-
1.In the present suit, the plaintiff has prayed for a decree of declaration to the effect that the correct date of birth of the plaintiff CS No. 102/13 Manjeet Singh Vs. Regional Passport Office 1/25 is 25.05.1977 and a decree of mandatory injunction, directing the defendant to cancel the date of birth on the passport of the plaintiff and rectify it as 25.05.1977 instead of 11.11.1976.
2. The brief facts, as given in the plaint, are as follows:- That the father of the plaintiff applied to the passport office for issuance of passport of the plaintiff, at the time when the plaintiff was a minor, and the passport issued to the plaintiff mentioned his date of birth as 11.11.1976. However, it is only when the plaintiff decided to visit abroad, he saw that his date of birth as mentioned in his passport is 11.11.1976 instead of 25.05.1977. To the contrary, the date of birth of the plaintiff mentioned in his other proofs of identity, i.e., birth certificate, election card, Pancard and his senior secondary school certificate, is 25.05.1977. Noting the discrepancy, the plaintiff immediately applied to the defendant for change in his date of birth mentioned in his passport, which the defendant refused on the ground that the plaintiff was required to obtain a declaratory decree to the said effect from the concerned Court. Accordingly, the plaintiff has approached this Court for the aforesaid reliefs.
CS No. 102/13 Manjeet Singh Vs. Regional Passport Office 2/25
3. Summons of the suit were issued to the defendant on 01.11.2013. On the date fixed for hearing, Mr. Giriraj Sharma, LDC, Regional Passport Office, New Delhi, appeared on behalf of the defendant and the written statement was filed on 08.01.2014.
4. 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 defendant on the ground that the defendant cannot effect any change/correction in the date of birth of the plaintiff in the absence of a declaratory order from the court of 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 is that the suit of the plaintiff is highly time barred as the documents on the basis of which the plaintiff is seeking relief of declaration has been in his possession for the past 8-21 years and despite being aware of the CS No. 102/13 Manjeet Singh Vs. Regional Passport Office 3/25 mistake, he failed to institute the suit for declaration. It is further contended that the suit is liable to dismissed for failure of the plaintiff to disclose material facts. It is stated that where on one hand, the previous two passports, issued to the plaintiff, were on the basis of a birth certificate bearing no. 3632 dated 15.11.1976, the requisition for a new passport is being made on the basis of a different birth certificate mentioning his date of birth as 25.05.1977. The next contention raised is that the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties. Further, it is alleged that the relief of declaration in its present form is not maintainable in the absence of a declaration to the effect that the birth certificate bearing no. 3632 and dated 15.11.1976 is null and void.
5. Replication was filed on behalf of the plaintiff on 29.01.2014, denying all the allegations/averments made in the written statement.
6. On completion of pleadings of the parties, this Court framed the following issues:-
Issue No. 1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of CS No. 102/13 Manjeet Singh Vs. Regional Passport Office 4/25 declaration to the effect that the date of birth of the plaintiff is 25.05.1977? OPP Issue No. 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 25.05.1977? OPP Issue No. 3: Whether the present suit is liable to be dismissed for concealment of material facts? OPD Issue No. 4:Whether the present suit is time barred? OPD Issue No. 5: Whether the present suit has been filed without any cause of action against the defendant? OPD Issue No. 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 Issue No. 7:Whether the present suit is not maintainable for failure of the plaintiff to seek the relief of declaration to the effect that the birth certificate dated 15.11.1976 is null and void? OPD
7. Relief
8. Both the parties were given an opportunity to lead their evidence.
CS No. 102/13 Manjeet Singh Vs. Regional Passport Office 5/25
9. In order to substantiate his case, the plaintiff stepped into the witness box and tendered his examination-in-chief, by way of an affidavit and placed on record the following documents in support thereof:-
- A copy of birth certificate, dated 30.11.2012, issued by Registrar of Birth & Death, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, mentioning the plaintiff's date of birth as 25.05.1977, Exhibit PW-1/A (OSR);
- A copy of the order dated 03.11.2012, issued by the office of Deputy Commissioner/Executive Magistrate, stating to be satisfied as to the date of birth of the applicant to be 25.05.1977 on the ground that inadvertently the same was not entered in the municipal record, Mark 'A';
- A copy of transfer certificate, issued by New Delhi Public School dated 15.09.1992, mentioning the plaintiff's date of birth as 25.05.1977, Exhibit PW-1/C (OSR) ;
-A copy of character certificate dated 15.09.1992, issued by New Delhi Public School, mentioning the plaintiff's date of birth as 25.05.1977, Exhibit PW-1//D (OSR);
CS No. 102/13 Manjeet Singh Vs. Regional Passport Office 6/25
- A copy of the plaintiff's election voter identity card dated 08.10.2005, mentioning the age of the plaintiff as 28 years, Exhibit PW- 1/E (OSR);
- A copy of the plaintiff's PAN Card, mentioning the plaintiff's date of birth as 25.05.1977, Exhibit PW-1/F (OSR);
- A copy of Class X school certificate dated 22.09.1992, issued by Central Board Secondary Education, mentioning the plaintiff's date of birth as 25.05.1977, Exhibit PW-1/G (OSR);
- A copy of ration card dated 25.10.2012, mentioning the plaintiff's date of birth as 25.05.1977, Exhibit PW-1/H (OSR); and
- A copy of legal notice dated 04.10.2013 to the Director, Regional Passport Office, Mark 'C'.
10.In his affidavit, PW-1 deposed on the same lines as stated in the plaint. Further, the plaintiff also examined Smt. Santosh Kaur, mother of the plaintiff as PW-2. PW-2 tendered her examination-in- chief by way of an affidavit and deposed that the plaintiff was born on 25.05.1977 and the same inadvertently could not be recorded with the concerned authority. No other witness was examined by the plaintiff. The Learned Counsel for the plaintiff closed plaintiff's CS No. 102/13 Manjeet Singh Vs. Regional Passport Office 7/25 evidence by way of a separate statement.
11.The defendant led their evidence and summoned the Register of Births and Deaths from the office of South Delhi Municipal Corporation to prove the entry of the date of birth of the plaintiff recorded, bearing no. 3632 dated 15.11.1976. DW-2 appeared and produced the summoned document and placed on record a certified copy of the extract of the Register of Birth and Death, bearing no. 3632 dated 15.11.1976, Exhibit DW-2/A. DW-2 also identified the certificate dated bearing no. 3632 dated 15.11.1976, as issued from the office of Registrar of Birth and Death, Exhibit DW-2/B. No other witness was examined. Lastly, the defendant relied upon 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 related to change of date of birth and place of birth in passports, Exhibit D-1, Exhibit D-2 respectively. No other evidence was led by the defendant and the Learned Counsel for the defendant closed evidence by way of a separate statement.
12. Arguments were advanced by the Learned Counsel for the plaintiff CS No. 102/13 Manjeet Singh Vs. Regional Passport Office 8/25 and the defendant reiterating the averments made in the pleadings.
13.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:-
Issue No. 1:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration to the effect that the correct date of birth of the plaintiff is 25.05.1977? OPP
14. 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 CS No. 102/13 Manjeet Singh Vs. Regional Passport Office 9/25 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."
15.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 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.
16.In the present suit, the plaintiff seeks a declaratory order as to his date of birth being 25.05.1977 on the basis of the documents filed by him. In order to prove his date of birth, the plaintiff has placed on record and proved his birth certificate dated 30.11.2012, issued by CS No. 102/13 Manjeet Singh Vs. Regional Passport Office 10/25 Registrar of Birth & Death, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, mentioning the plaintiff's date of birth as 25.05.1977, Exhibit PW-1/A (OSR), election voter identity card dated 08.10.2005, mentioning the age of the plaintiff as 28 years, Exhibit PW- 1/E (OSR), PAN Card, mentioning the plaintiff's date of birth as 25.05.1977, Exhibit PW-1/F (OSR) and class X school certificate dated 22.09.1992, issued by Central Board Secondary Education, mentioning the plaintiff's date of birth as 25.05.1977, Exhibit PW-1/G (OSR). The case of the plaintiff is that while he was a minor, his father had applied for his first passport, wherein his date of birth was mentioned as 11.11.1976, however, his correct date of birth is 25.05.1977. There is no discrepancy as to the date of birth in the documents relied upon by the plaintiff to prove his correct date of birth. However, during cross-examination, the plaintiff was confronted with a copy of the birth certificate dated 15.11.1976 mentioning the date of birth of 11.11.1976, exhibited as Mark 'A'. The plaintiff denied having knowledge about the documents furnished by his father at the time of applying for the plaintiff's passport when he was a minor. Though, the plaintiff admitted that the date of birth mentioned in his passport and the said birth CS No. 102/13 Manjeet Singh Vs. Regional Passport Office 11/25 certificate, Mark 'A', is the same and that the name of the person mentioned therein is his name as well. He disputed the name of Smt. Kulwant Kaur entered in the space for name of mother of the applicant in Mark 'A', stating that the name of his mother is Smt. Santosh Kaur. The plaintiff was further cross-examined and questioned as to the date of birth of 11.11.1976 being mentioned subsequently as his date of birth in the renewed passport (s), which was admittedly applied for by the plaintiff when he was a major. The plaintiff admitted that he came to know of his correct date of birth at the time of issuance of his matriculation certificate. However, the plaintiff was unable to give any reason or justification for his failure to rectify his date of birth from 11.11.1976 to 25.05.1977 at the time of applying for renewal of his passport after having attained majority. The plaintiff deposed that the agent had filled in his application form for renewal of his passport. What is evident from the above is that despite his correct date of birth being within his knowledge, at the time of renewal of his passport, the plaintiff failed to rectify the error and obtained a renewed passport with the date of birth as 11.11.1976 instead of 25.05.1977. For having stated incorrect facts in the application form at the time of CS No. 102/13 Manjeet Singh Vs. Regional Passport Office 12/25 applying for renewal of his passport, the defendant can initiate proceedings against the plaintiff under the applicable provisions, however, it cannot be a basis for rejecting the claim of the plaintiff that his correct date of birth is 25.05.1977. Further, it is pertinent to note that the birth certificate dated 15.11.1976, bearing no. 3632, has been proved by the record/entry made in this regard in the Births and Deaths Register, however, it cannot be said conclusively that it belongs to the plaintiff. Further, as regards the documents relied upon and proved by the plaintiff in proof of his date of birth, the defendant has not challenged their veracity or authenticity. 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 25.05.1977. Thus, the first requirement of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act stands satisfied.
17.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 that he approached the defendant for correction of his date of birth CS No. 102/13 Manjeet Singh Vs. Regional Passport Office 13/25 in his passport, however, the defendant did not make the necessary rectification in his passport. Further, the plaintiff also made a written representation to the defendant for change of his date of birth in his passport, vide a letter dated 15.05.2013, which has not been disputed by the defendant. It is the case of the defendant that a declaratory order from a court of competent jurisdiction is required for rectifying/changing the date of birth in the passport and that the defendant cannot rectify/change the same. Thus, it can be stated that the defendant refused to make the necessary correction in the plaintiff's passport as to his date of the birth being 25.05.1977. Though it has not been specifically admitted that the defendant denied the right of the plaintiff of having his correct date of birth being mentioned in his passport, the stand taken by the defendant 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 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.
CS No. 102/13 Manjeet Singh Vs. Regional Passport Office 14/25
18. 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 defendant directing it to change the date of birth in his passport to 25.05.1977. 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 25.05.1977, the relief of 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.
CS No. 102/13 Manjeet Singh Vs. Regional Passport Office 15/25
19.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 25.05.1977. 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 25.05.1977?
OPP
20.The burden of proving this issue is on the plaintiff. It has been proved that the date of birth of the plaintiff is 25.05.1977. The defendant's case is that the previous passports were issued to the plaintiff on the basis of the birth certificate dated 15.11.1976, bearing no. 3632, mentioning the date of birth as 11.11.1976, therefore, the request made by the plaintiff to rectify the date of birth, mentioned in the passport, to 25.05.1977 on the basis of a another birth certificate could not be done in the absence of a CS No. 102/13 Manjeet Singh Vs. Regional Passport Office 16/25 declaratory decree passed by a court of competent jurisdiction. In order to ascertain the truth, this Court directed the defendant to produce the certified copies of all the documents maintained in their record, including the application forms and all the documents submitted along with it by the plaintiff/his father at the time of applying for issuance/renewal of his passport. The defendant produced the relevant records and the parties were given an opportunity to raise their objections/submissions etc., if any, with respect to the said documents. The plaintiff did not deny/dispute the documents. On perusal of the application forms, neither of them mention the birth certificate, Mark 'A', as a document produced/furnished by or on behalf of the applicant in proof of his date of birth. However, it is pertinent to note that the document, Mark 'A' is a part of the record filed by the defendant along with the application forms. Though, the defendant has a copy of the birth certificate, Mark 'A', in its record, the defendant has failed to show that the passport (s) were issued on the basis of the said birth certificate mentioning date of birth as 11.11.1976. Even otherwise, the plaintiff has proved that his correct date of birth is 25.05.1977 and not 11.11.1976. However, this Court takes notice of the CS No. 102/13 Manjeet Singh Vs. Regional Passport Office 17/25 advantage taken by the plaintiff to repeatedly seek renewal of his passports based on his previous passport which mentioned his date of birth as 11.11.1976. It appears that the plaintiff only decided to seek rectification of his date of birth mentioned in his passport, when it became a necessity at the time of applying for visa to visit Canada. It is reiterated that the plaintiff had knowledge that his correct date of birth is 25.05.1977 at the time of applying for renewals of his passport and the defendant could have initiated action against the defendant for having stated incorrect facts in the application forms for renewal of his passport. However, from the above, it is not clear on what basis the date of birth in the initial/first passport of the plaintiff was mentioned as 11.11.1976. At this stage, attention is drawn to the contention of the defendant that based on the circulars, issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, Exhibit D-1 and Exhibit D-2, the defendant 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). Evidently, the defendant, under the belief that the CS No. 102/13 Manjeet Singh Vs. Regional Passport Office 18/25 first/initial passport was issued on the basis of the birth certificate Mark 'A', cautiously relegated the party to institute the present suit for declaration as the defendant could not effect a rectification in the passport on the basis of a another birth certificate, Exhibit PW-1/A.
21. Having decided the first issue in the affirmative, this Court is of the view that the defendant make the necessary correction/rectification and issue fresh passport to the plaintiff with his correct date of birth as 25.05.1977. Accordingly, the issue no. 2 is decided in the affirmative.
Issue no. 3:-
3. Whether the present suit is liable to be dismissed for concealment of material facts? OPD
22.The onus of proving this issue is on the defendant. The contention of the defendant is that the plaintiff has not approached this Court with clean hands and has concealed material facts owing to which alone the suit is liable to be dismissed. As per the version of the defendant, the previous passports of the plaintiff were issued on the basis of the CS No. 102/13 Manjeet Singh Vs. Regional Passport Office 19/25 birth certificate, Mark 'A' or the certified entry in the Register of Births and Deaths, of birth certificate bearing no. 3632 dated 15.11.1976, Exhibit DW-2/A, which has been concealed by the plaintiff. Though the copy of the birth certificate (Mark 'A') is proved by the entry of the same made in the Register of Births and Deaths, Exhibit DW-2/A, the defendant has failed to show that on the basis of the said birth certificate, the previous passports were issued to the plaintiff. The application forms and the documents submitted along with them does contain a copy of the birth certificate (Mark 'A'), however, the application form(s) do not mention the said document being furnished as a proof of birth. The defendant has failed to show that the previous passports were issued on the basis of the birth certificate mentioning the date of birth as 11.11.1976. Also, the defendant has not produced/placed on record the first application form that must have been submitted by the father of the plaintiff for issuance of the passport of the plaintiff, who was a minor at that time. In view thereof, this Court is of the view that the defendant has failed to discharge the burden of proving this issue. Accordingly, this issue is decided in the negative.
CS No. 102/13 Manjeet Singh Vs. Regional Passport Office 20/25 Issue no. 4:-
4. Whether the present suit is time barred? OPD
23.The burden of proving this issue is on the defendant. It is alleged that the suit is highly time barred as the documents on the basis of which the plaintiff is seeking declaratory relief are 8-21 years old have been in the possession and knowledge of the plaintiff, despite which the plaintiff failed to timely apply for correction in his date of birth mentioned in the passport. Firstly, nothing has been shown to establish that the suit has been filed beyond the period of limitation or is time barred. Even otherwise, the limitation period for the relief of declaration shall begin from the date the cause of action arises. In the present suit, the cause of action arose on refusal by the defendant to rectify/change the date of birth of the plaintiff from 11.11.1976 to 25.05.1977 in his passport. It cannot be said the suit is time barred. Making of mere allegations without supporting averments or evidence is not sufficient to discharge the onus placed on a party to prove an issue. The defendant has failed to discharge its burden. Thus, this issue is also decided in the negative.
CS No. 102/13 Manjeet Singh Vs. Regional Passport Office 21/25 Issue no. 5:-
5. Whether the present suit has been filed without any cause of action against the defendant? OPD
24.The burden of proving this issue is on the defendant. It is alleged that no cause of action arises in favour of the plaintiff as the defendant 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 have been perused, and it appears that the defendant exercised its discretion to refuse to effect the correction in the date of birth of the plaintiff in his passport believing that the previous passports were issued on the basis of the birth certificate, Mark 'A', which mentioned the plaintiff's date of birth as 11.11.1976 and not 25.05.1976. In light thereof and findings of this Court on issues no. 1 and 2, this Court is of the view that the defendant has failed to discharge the onus to prove this issue. Accordingly, this issue is decided in the negative.
Issue no. 6:-
6.Whether the suit is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CS No. 102/13 Manjeet Singh Vs. Regional Passport Office 22/25 of Code of Civil Procedure for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties? OPD
25.The issue is whether the suit is bad in law for non-joinder and mis-
joinder of parties. 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 defendant has failed to establish how and on what basis proper or necessary person(s) have or have not been made a party to the suit. Mere allegations without supporting averments or evidence is not sufficient to discharge the onus placed on a party to prove an issue. The defendant has failed to discharge its burden. Thus, this issue is CS No. 102/13 Manjeet Singh Vs. Regional Passport Office 23/25 decided in the negative.
Issue No. 7:-
7. Whether the present suit is not maintainable for failure of the plaintiff to seek the relief of declaration to the effect that the birth certificate dated 15.11.1976 is null and void? OPD
26. The burden of proving this issue is on the defendant. It must be established that the suit is not maintainable without the plaintiff having sought a declaration to the effect that the birth certificate dated 15.11.1976 is null and void. The defendant has not been able to show that the birth certificate dated 15.11.1976 is that of the plaintiff and that it is on that basis that the previous passports were issued by the defendant. Thus, the question as to maintainability of the present suit for failure to seek for the relief of declaration with respect to the said birth certificate does not arise. The defendant has failed to discharge the onus to prove this issue. Accordingly, this issue is decided in the negative.
27.Having given a finding on all the issues framed by this Court, this CS No. 102/13 Manjeet Singh Vs. Regional Passport Office 24/25 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 defendant, declaring the date of birth of the plaintiff as 25.05.1977. Further, on the plaintiff applying for a fresh passport, the defendant 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.Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Pronounced in Open Court today October 01st, 2014 (SALONI SINGH) Civil Judge-03/PHC/NEW DELHI 01.10.2014 CS No. 102/13 Manjeet Singh Vs. Regional Passport Office 25/25