Delhi District Court
Abhay Bhatia vs Central Board Of Secondary Education on 8 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. T. PRIYADARSHINI
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-RENT CONTROLLER, EAST,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
CIVIL SUIT NO. 1075/2022
CNR NO. DLET03-002121-2022
IN THE MATTER OF:
Mr. Abhay Bhatia
S/o Furkan Husain
R/o H.No. E-182,
Gali No. 6, South Anarkali,
Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051 ..........Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. CBSE
Regional Office (East)
PS-1-2, Institutional Area,
I.P. Extension, Patparganj,
New Delhi-110092
Service to be effected
Through its Chairman or any
Designated Officer.
2. S.T. Andrew Scots, SR, Sec, School
9th Avenue, I.P. Extension, Patparganj,
New Delhi-92.
School ID. No. 250033,
Through its Principal/Incharge .........Defendants
SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION
ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF.
Date of Institution: 23.12.2022
Date on which Judgment was reserved: 23.04.2025
Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2025.07.08
16:15:08 +0530
CS No: 1075/2022 Abhay Bhatia vs. Central Board of Secondary Education 1 of 12
Date of Judgment: 08.07.2025
JUDGMENT
1. In the present suit, the Plaintiff has prayed for a declaration in his favour and against the Defendants thereby declaring the correction/rectification of the name of the Plaintiff from Fardeen Husain to Abhay Bhatia in 10 th and 12th class Grade sheet-cum- Certificate of Performance and Migration certificate/mark sheet vide roll no. 14111175 and 1461024 and Registration no. D-120/65008/0365 and D-222/25033/0292 issued by the Defendant no. 1.
2. In the plaint, the Plaintiff had also prayed for Mandatory Injunction against the defendants directing them to correct/rectify the name of the plaintiff from Fardeen Husain to Abhay Bhatia in 10 th and 12th class Grade sheet-cum-Certificate of Performance and migration certificate/mark sheet vide roll no. 14111175 and 1461024 and registration no. D-120/65008/0365 and D-222/25033/0292 issued from the board of defendants. On 27.05.2025, the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff withdrew the said prayer. Separate statement was recorded to this effect.
CASE AS PER PLAINT
3. Briefly stated, case of the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff was Muslim by religion by birth and his birth name was Fardeen Husain, which is also mentioned in MCD record. Plaintiff renounced his T PRIYADARSHINI CS No: 1075/2022 Abhay Bhatia vs. Central Board of Secondary Education 2 of 12 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.07.08 16:15:11 +0530 previous religion and accept Hindu religion in the year 2020 and also changed his name as Abhay Bhatia in place of Fardeen Husain with Hindu Rites and Customs under Bhatia Hindu Shuddi Sabha (Reg), 6949, Bidla License (Kamla Nagar), Delhi-110007. Plaintiff appeared in the examination of class 10th and 12th through his school i.e. S.T. Andrew Scots Senior Secondary School at 9th Avenue, I.P. Extension, Patparganj, New Delhi-110092 (defendant no.2) vide his Roll no. 14111175 and 14610240 conducted by Central Board of Secondary Education the defendant no. 1) and passed the said exams. Defendant no. 1 had issued Grade Sheet cum Certificate of the performance bearing registration no. D120/65008/365 and D-222/25033/0292 in session 2019 to 2020 and 2021 to 2022.
4. After filing the form for the admission of Class IXth and XIth, the Plaintiff made request with the Defendant no. 2 to correct/rectify his name but the Defendant no. 2 gave assurance to the Plaintiff that the above said correction/rectification would be rectified at time of filling the examination form of 10th and 12th Class but despite repeated requests made by the Plaintiff to the Defendant no. 2, he did not rectify the same. Plaintiff also requested Defendant no. 1 the rectify his name. At the time of filling form of class 10 th and 12th, Plaintiff again requested Defendant no.2 for the said purpose but defendant no.2 suggested him to approach Defendant no.1 stating that he has no power to change the name of the Plaintiff.
5. As per the directions of Defendant no.2, Plaintiff submitted all his documents before Defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 1 issued a TPRIYADARSHINI Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI CS No: 1075/2022 Abhay Bhatia vs. Central Board of Secondary Education 3 of 12 Date: 2025.07.08 16:15:15 +0530 letter vide letter no. CBSE/ROD(E)/M&M/2022/E-71121 DATED 03.11.2022 to Defendant no. 2 and on instructions from the Defendant no. 1, the Plaintiff got published his correct name in one Daily Newspaper i.e. "Delhi Vaibha" dated 28.08.2021. Plaintiff had also published gazette notification dated 26 th February to March, 2022 through the Publication Department of Government of India and hence, the Plaintiff approached Defendant no. 1 and requested them to correct his name in the aforesaid document. However, his request was not accepted and amended marksheets were not issued. In this background, the present suit for declaration and mandatory injunction has been filed against the Defendants.
PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS
6. Summons of the suit were issued to the Defendants and same was served upon them on 31.01.2023 and 04.03.2023. Despite service of summons, neither the Defendants appeared before the Court nor any written statement was filed on behalf of the Defendants. Accordingly, the Defendants were proceeded ex-parte on 03.04.2023. Subsequently on 25.07.2023, Defendant no. 1 appeared before the Court and filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 R/w Section 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 03.04.2023 alongwith the written statement and an application under Order VIII Rule 1 R/w Section 151 CPC seeking condonation of delay in filing of written statement. The same was allowed subject to cost of Rs. 4,000/- payable to the Plaintiff. However, the costs was not paid by the Defendant no. 1 to the Plaintiff and order dated 03.04.2023 for ex-
T PRIYADARSHINI CS No: 1075/2022 Abhay Bhatia vs. Central Board of Secondary Education 4 of 12 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.07.08 16:15:21 +0530 parte was not set-aside and application under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC not allowed.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
7. In order to prove his case, Plaintiff/Sh. Abhay Bhatia was examined and he tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/1 bearing his signatures at point A and B, wherein averments made in the plaint have been reiterated. He also relied upon various documents and tendered them in evidence, such as -
a) Birth certificate Ex. PW1/A;
b) Aadhar card of deponent Ex. PW1/B;
c) Mark statement-cum-certificate of Secondary School
Examination 2020 Ex. PW1/C;
d) Mark Statement-cum-certificate of Secondary School
Examination 2022 Ex. PW1/D;
e) Certificate regarding change of religion Ex. PW1/E;
f) Letter written by the Defendant no. 2 School to the
Controller Examination CBSE Mark A;
g) Reply of letter of school dated 03.11.2022 Mark B;
h) Newspaper publication Ex. PW1/H;
i) Copy of notification in Gazette of India Ex. PW1/I; and
j) Aadhar card of the mother of the plaintiff Ex. PW1/J.
8. The plaintiff's evidence was concluded on 25.07.2023 vide separate statement of Plaintiff. Final arguments were advanced by the Ld. counsel for the plaintiff on 23.04.2025. Case file has been perused.
T PRIYADARSHINI CS No: 1075/2022 Abhay Bhatia vs. Central Board of Secondary Education 5 of 12 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.07.08 16:15:26 +0530 Submissions made have been heard. My findings and observations on facts in issue are delineated hereinafter.
9. It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff that evidence led by Plaintiff has gone unchallenged and hence, the suit be decreed in favour of Plaintiff.
FINDINGS & CONCLUSION
10. I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of Plaintiff and have also carefully gone through the record.
11. Whilst the Defendants have been proceeded with ex-parte, Ms. Sakshi, Ld. Counsel for Defendant CBSE has addressed extensive arguments in the present matter. On the point as to whether the defendant's submissions (where it has been proceeded ex-parte) is of any relevance, it is pertinent to note that in a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanchhu vs Prakash Chand [Decision dated 22.04.2025 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5319 of 2025], it has been observed that:
"Pleadings, either in a plaint or a written statement, constitute the plinth on which the respective claims and defence of the parties to a civil suit rest. What a pleading ought to contain is provided in Order VI Rule 2, CPC. Only material facts, on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence to succeed, have to be stated without the evidence by which the T PRIYADARSHINI CS No: 1075/2022 Abhay Bhatia vs. Central Board of Secondary Education 6 of 12 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.07.08 16:15:31 +0530 pleading is to be proved. Once the pleadings are complete but the defendant is set ex-parte, and such order has attained finality, the defendant's rights suffer a curtailment. He cannot produce evidence in defence and hence statements, which are in the nature of factual assertions, cannot be proved by leading evidence. Generally speaking, the limited right that the defendant, set ex-parte, would have is confined to cross- examining the plaintiff's witnesses. The effort has to be directed towards demonstrating that they are not speaking the truth and, thereby, demolish the case of the plaintiff. Essentially, therefore, in such a case the defendant has to convince the court that the case put up by the plaintiff is so false that the court ought not to accept it. However, if the defendant raises an issue on law which is traceable in the written statement, for instance, the suit is barred by limitation or Section 9, CPC is attracted, or if the relief claimed in the suit cannot be granted for reasons disclosed, the requirement of the defendant proving such defence as raised in the written statement by leading evidence may not arise and the court may frame an issue of law and decide the same."
12. The Ld. Counsel for Defendant/CBSE has averred that the public documents filed by the Plaintiff are inconsistent. It is submitted that in his Aadhar card which is Ex. PW1/J, it is mentioned "C/o Sumati Bhatia" and the name of the father is not there. Per contra, it is submitted that name of the mother is mentioned as Farheen and father is mentioned as Furqan in the birth certificate. However, in the Class T CS No: 1075/2022 Abhay Bhatia vs. Central Board of Secondary Education 7 of 12 PRIYADARSHINI Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.07.08 16:15:35 +0530 10th Marks Statement-cum-Certificate, name of mother is mentioned as "Sumiti Bhatia".
13. In Jigya Yadav vs. CBSE (AIR Online 2021 SC 274), the following has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India:
"171. As regards request for "change" of particulars in the certificate issued by the CBSE, it presupposes that the particulars intended to be recorded in the CBSE certificate are not consistent with the school records. Such a request could be made in two different situations. The first is on the basis of public documents like Birth Certificate, Aadhaar Card/Election Card, etc. and to incorporate change in the CBSE certificate consistent therewith. The second possibility is when the request for change is due to the acquired name by choice at a later point of time. That change need not be backed by public documents pertaining to the candidate.
(a) Reverting to the first category, as noted earlier, there is a legal presumption in relation to the public documents as envisaged in the 1872 Act. Such public documents, therefore, cannot be ignored by the CBSE. Taking note of those documents, the CBSE may entertain the request for recording change in the certificate issued by it. This, however, need not be unconditional, but subject to certain reasonable conditions to be fulfilled by the applicant as may be prescribed by the CBSE, such as, of furnishing sworn affidavit containing declaration and to indemnify the CBSE and upon payment of prescribed fees in T PRIYADARSHINI CS No: 1075/2022 Abhay Bhatia vs. Central Board of Secondary Education 8 of 12 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.07.08 16:15:41 +0530 lieu of administrative expenses. The CBSE may also insist for issuing Public Notice and publication in the Official Gazette before recording the change in the fresh certificate to be issued by it upon surrender/return of the original certificate (or duplicate original certificate, as the case may be) by the applicant. The fresh certificate may contain disclaimer and caption/annotation against the original entry (except in respect of change of name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten) indicating the date on which change has been recorded and the basis thereof. In other words, the fresh certificate may retain original particulars while recording the change along with caption/annotation referred to above (except in respect of change of name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten).
(b) However, in the latter situation where the change is to be effected on the basis of new acquired name without any supporting school record or public document, that request may be entertained upon insisting for prior permission/declaration by a Court of law in that regard and publication in the Official Gazette including surrender/return of original certificate (or duplicate original certificate, as the case may be) issued by CBSE and upon payment of prescribed fees. The fresh certificate as in other situations referred to above, retain the original entry (except in respect of change of name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten) and to insert caption/annotation indicating the date on which it has been recorded and other details including disclaimer of CBSE. This is T PRIYADARSHINI CS No: 1075/2022 Abhay Bhatia vs. Central Board of Secondary Education 9 of 12 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.07.08 16:15:45 +0530 so because the CBSE is not required to adjudicate nor has the mechanism to verify the correctness of the claim of the applicant."
14. There is a discrepancy with the official name of the plaintiff's mother as birth certificate mentions the name as "Farheen" and the case of the plaintiff is his mother's name is "Sumiti Bhatia". Whilst in the memo of parties, the plaintiff has mentioned his father's name as "Furkan Husain", it appears he has filed an application before Defendant/CBSE for deletion of father's name. There is nothing on record to state that "Farheen" and "Sumiti Bhatia" are one and the same person. Plaintiff's mother has not even been examined as a witness to remove this confusion. The documents filed by the Plaintiff do not align and inspire the confidence of this Court.
15. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Pragati Shrivastava vs The Secretary, CBSE [W.P. (C) 11250/2021] has observed that:
"When a student applies to a court of law for prior permission and/or declaration and produces public document(s), the court would enter upon an inquiry wherein the legal presumption would operate in favour of the public document(s) and burden would shift on the party opposing the change to rebut the presumption or oppose the claim on any other ground. The question of genuineness of the document including its contents would be adjudicated in the same inquiry and the court of law would permit the desired change only upon verifying the official records and upon being satisfied of its genuineness. At T PRIYADARSHINI CS No: 1075/2022 Abhay Bhatia vs. Central Board of Secondary Education 10 of 12 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.07.08 16:15:49 +0530 the same time, the question of justiciability of the requested changes would be considered and only upon being satisfied with the need demonstrated by the student, the court would grant its permission.
...Thus, according to the Supreme Court, where there are public documents which support the case of the petitioner, the Court may legitimately take the said public documents into account while deciding whether or not to grant relief. The fact that the public documents may not tally with the school records would be of no significant consequence; however, in such a case, the CBSE may be permitted to indemnify itself by seeking an affidavit from the candidate concerned, or inserting a disclaimer in the certificate to the effect that the change in name has been made at the behest of the candidate, in the light of public documents produced by him."
16. The name was changed by the Plaintiff purportedly in the year 2020, however, the Plaintiff has filled final roll call form with the Defendant no. 2 School as Fardeen Hussain in the year 2020 and again subsequently in the year 2022. It is unclear how the mother's name came to be reflected as "Sumiti" in the mark sheets. The Plaintiff has signed as "Fardeen Hussain" even after change of name. The requests for name change have been filed belatedly and that too with inconsistent documents with apparent discrepancies. Whilst this Court is aware that right to change one's name is part of the fundamental right to in the absence of clarity as to the identity of the mother of the Plaintiff, the public documents filed on record appear to be unreliable T PRIYADARSHINI CS No: 1075/2022 Abhay Bhatia vs. Central Board of Secondary Education 11 of 12 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.07.08 16:15:54 +0530 and sketchy.
17. It is writ large from the pleadings and the documents annexed in support of the plaint that the Plaintiff has not approached this Court with clean hands. The public documents i.e. the birth certificate and the Aadhaar card are not aligning with each other. This in conjunction with the fact that the Plaintiff has also requested for deletion of the name of the father from the certificates, further casts aspersions as to the plaintiff's narrative. In the landmark case of Ramjas Foundation and another vs. Union of India and others, (2010) 14 SCC 38) the Hon'ble Apex Court has univocally held as under:-
"21. The principle that a person who does not come to the Court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his grievance and, in any case, such person is not entitled to any relief is applicable not only to the petitions filed under Articles 32, 226 and 136 of the Constitution but also to the cases instituted in others courts and judicial forums."
18. In view of the above said detailed reasoning, the present suit is dismissed. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINIAnnounced in open court T
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
on this 8th July, 2025 2025.07.08
16:15:59 +0530
T. Priyadarshini
Senior Civil Judge-cum-RC (East)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
This judgment consists of 12 pages and each and every page of this judgment is signed by me.
CS No: 1075/2022 Abhay Bhatia vs. Central Board of Secondary Education 12 of 12