"4. In my opinion, the Act is silent about the contingency for subsequent correction of entry already made in Birth Register by correcting the name of the child at the instance of the parents. This is the case of unmindful legislative omission. This is classic case of casus omissus, i.e. circumstances concerning which an Act is silent. The question is how to deal with such contingencies? Should the Court leave the litigant in sheer helpless condition asking him to wait till the legislature cures the defect by providing for the omission? Can the Court escape the responsibility of considering these unforeseen contingencies? However, I cannot ignore the modern tendency in Courts to take the view that if a case is entirely unprovided for by a Statute, either directly or indirectly, then it must remain nobody's child-a luckless orphan of the law (In re Leicester permanent Building Society, 1942 Ch. 340. Same was the view of Devlin L.J. in Gladstone v. Bower; reported in 1960 (2) 9B 384 when he observed "we cannot legislate for casus omissus". This tendency has given rise to inconvenient results. One option left for me is to express regrets for a statutory lacuna and to hope that it will be remedied by legislation and occasionally the hope is fulfilled, even if tardily. However, in my opinion, in this case, there is "impalpable line" of distinction which should enable the Court to come out of helplessness. In this case the caption of Sec. 15 gives general indication to give
