https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417340 A suit for correction of date of birth was held within limitation because the cause of action arose only when the plaintiff discovered the incorrect entry and the correction request was rejected; the three-year period under Article 58 of the Limitation Act was satisfied, and Fundamental Rule 56 did not bar relief on the facts. Contemporaneous documents, including the matriculation certificate, attestation form and passport, consistently supported the claimed date of birth, while the employer could not explain the contrary service record. Declaratory and mandatory injunction relief was therefore upheld, and the award of damages, interest and costs for the resulting harassment and litigation was sustained. en-us Mon, 17 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Jan 2022 09:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417340 A suit for correction of date of birth was held within limitation because the cause of action arose only when the plaintiff discovered the incorrect entry and the correction request was rejected; the three-year period under Article 58 of the Limitation Act was satisfied, and Fundamental Rule 56 did not bar relief on the facts. Contemporaneous documents, including the matriculation certificate, attestation form and passport, consistently supported the claimed date of birth, while the employer could not explain the contrary service record. Declaratory and mandatory injunction relief was therefore upheld, and the award of damages, interest and costs for the resulting harassment and litigation was sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 17 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417340