Gujarat High Court
Gujarat State Co.Op. Agri. & Rural ... vs Manharlal Shantilal Mehta(Died) ... on 15 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/117/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 117 of 2004
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
Yes
================================================================
GUJARAT STATE CO.OP. AGRI. & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.
Versus
MANHARLAL SHANTILAL MEHTA(DIED) THROUGH HIS LHR & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MS LILU K BHAYA(1705) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR RD DAVE(264) for the Respondent(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 15/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Assistant Judge, Amereli, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1996, dated 13.10.2003, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bagsara, in Regular Civil Suit No. 7 of 1993 dated 30.12.1995, has been confirmed.
2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their original status in the suit.
3. The brief facts arising in the present Second Appeal are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction against the defendant with respect to the plaintiff's Date of Birth Page 1 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 02:29:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/117/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined being wrongly mentioned as 16.10.1941 in the defendant's records, instead of the correct date, and the suit was filed to modify the same. This was necessitated by the fact that the plaintiff had been requesting the defendant to modify the date, but the defendant had not complied.
4. The Defendant appeared in the said suit and, after the service of summons, filed a Written Statement. The defendant stated that at the time of the plaintiff's appointment for the post of Supervisor, the plaintiff had given his date of birth as 16.10.1941, along with the application form for seeking appointment. The plaintiff had also provided a School Leaving Certificate to prove this date of birth. The defendant contended that it was only at the fag end of his career that the plaintiff was seeking modification of the date of birth in the service record.
5. The Trial Court framed issues vide Exhibit 8, which were as under:
(a) Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try the suit?
(b) Whether the suit of the plaintiff suffers from the estoppel of delay and laches?
(c) Whether the plaintiff proves that his original Date of Birth is 16.10.1941, and not 04.11.1942?
(d) Whether the plaintiff proves that the office order issued by the defendant bearing No. Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 02:29:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/117/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined LDP/Est./AX/4010 dated 10.01.1990, is illegal and null and void?
6. After considering the evidence and giving findings on all issues, the suit filed by the plaintiff was allowed, and the defendant was directed to make the changes in the service record of the plaintiff by stating the true and correct date of birth, i.e., 04.11.1942.
7. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the defendant filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1996. After reappreciating the evidence, the First Appellate Court rejected the said appeal; hence, the present Second Appeal. The present Second Appeal was admitted by a Coordinate Bench by an order dated 28.04.2006, and the following Substantial Questions of Law were framed:
(a) Whether the Civil Court will have jurisdiction to entertain the suit when the dispute is between the employer and the employee?
(b) Whether the Civil Court will have jurisdiction to entertain the claim when the Appellant Bank under a statute is governed by the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act and the Provisions of Gujarat Co-
operative Societies Act are applicable to the employees of the Bank?
(c) Whether the Civil Court will have jurisdiction to Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 02:29:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/117/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined entertain the suit when the special remedy is available under the Act?
(d) Whether the Civil Court will have jurisdiction to entertain the suit when there is a dispute between the Bank and the employee relating to the conditions of service of employee which also include of employment?
(e) Whether the Civil Court will have jurisdiction to entertain the suit which is barred by limitation?
8. The learned advocate for the defendant has mainly argued that if the averments of the plaint and the documents produced by the plaintiff are taken into consideration, the entire suit was barred on the ground of limitation. This is due to the fact that the application for the job was filed by the plaintiff in the year 1968, and the present suit was filed only in the year 1993 to modify the date of birth, which the plaintiff himself had stated in the application form while seeking appointment.
9. The learned advocate for the defendant has also argued that even if the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, whereby the date of birth was corrected in the plaintiff's birth certificate, is taken into consideration, the defendants were not a party to the said proceedings, and therefore, the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate was not binding on the defendants.
Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 02:29:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/117/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined
10. It has further been argued by the learned advocate for the defendant that it is not denied that the plaintiff himself supplied the copy of the School Leaving Certificate and the Birth Certificate. The fact of filling up the form while requesting for appointment was also undertaken by the plaintiff, and it is not denied that the date of birth stated in the said form is 16.10.1941, and not 04.11.1942. Therefore, the fact that the School Leaving Certificate states the date 16.10.1941, is not denied by the plaintiff, nor is there any evidence to state that the School Leaving Certificate does not state the true and correct date of birth of the plaintiff.
11. The learned advocate has also argued that, in view of the fact that the plaintiff is a Supervisor, the Civil Court would not have jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit, and therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court, which has been confirmed by the Appellate Court, ought to be quashed and set aside.
12. With respect to the fact that the suit is barred on the ground of relief, the learned advocate for the defendant has argued that before filing the Civil Suit No. 7 of 1993, the plaintiff had also filed Civil Suit No. 5 of 1990 for the same relief, which was thereafter withdrawn. Therefore, the plaintiff could not have filed the present suit.
13. Moreover, it has also been argued by the learned advocate for the defendant that even if the date when the judgment and order was Page 5 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 02:29:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/117/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined passed by the Chief Metropolitan Judicial Magistrate (CMJM), dated 05.05.1989, is taken into consideration, the present suit, having been filed in the year 1993, is hopelessly time-barred and is therefore required to be dismissed.
14. With respect to the fact that the plaintiff could not have sought for modification of the date of birth due to the unexplained and inordinate delay, no relief could have been granted by the Civil Court and the Appellate Court, and therefore, the Second Appeal is required to be allowed. The learned advocate for the defendant had relied on the following judgments:
Union of India and Ors. Vs. Kantilal Hemantram Pandya, AIR 1995 SC 1349: 1995 AIR SCW 1297.
Coal India Ltd. Vs. Ardhendu Bikas Bhattacharjee, AIR 2005 SC 829.
U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and others v. Raj Kumar Agnihotri, AIR 2005 SC 2491: 2005 AIR SCW 2470.
Union of India Vs. Harnam Singh, AIR 1993 SC 1367: 1993 AIR SCW 1241.
State of U.P. and others Vs. Smt. Gulaichi, AIR 2003 SC 4209.
State of Maharashtra and Anr. V. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble and Ors., AIR SCW 206: 2011 Lab IC 1051.
Page 6 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 02:29:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/117/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined
15. Per contra, the learned advocate for the plaintiff has argued that the plaintiff had filed proceedings before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bagsara, for modification of the date of birth.
The date of birth, 16.10.1941, which was stated in the service book, was already corrected to 04.11.1942. Therefore, the first cause of action for the plaintiff to seek correction in the service record arose on May 4, 1989, when the judgment and order was passed. Thereafter, on 29.05.1989, an application was filed by the plaintiff to the Bank for correction of the birth certificate, and it was only by a letter dated 01.01.1990, which was received by the plaintiff on 15.01.1990, that the Bank refused to correct the date of birth in the service record.
16. Pursuant thereto, the plaintiff had filed a Civil Suit against the defendant, being Civil Suit No. 5 of 1990. By an order dated 18.08.1992, vide Exhibit 30, the said suit was withdrawn on the technical ground that notice under Section 167 of the Gujarat Co- operative Societies Act was not issued to the defendant. Ultimately, by the order dated 18.08.1992, the Court had permitted the plaintiff to withdraw the said suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Therefore, the said suit has been filed within three years from the date when the permission to file the fresh suit was given by the Trial Court in Special Suit No. 5 of 1990, and thus, the suit filed by the plaintiff is within the period of limitation. With respect to the fact that the Trial Court has jurisdiction to hear and Page 7 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 02:29:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/117/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined decide the suit, the learned advocate for the plaintiff has argued that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not ousted in matters relating to the correction of the date of birth, and therefore, the Civil Court had jurisdiction to hear and decide the said suit and has rightly decided the dispute between the parties.
17. Moreover, in view of the fact that the plaintiff is seeking modification of his date of birth in the service record, the same will not be governed by the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, and thus, the provisions of the Act would not be applicable. Therefore, the present Second Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
18. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having considered the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court, the following facts have to be taken into consideration: in the service record of the defendant, the date of birth of the plaintiff is stated to be 16.10.1941 instead of 04.11.1942. Considering the said fact, the plaintiff moved the CMJM by filing Application No. 8 of 1989 against the Registrar of Birth and Death Registration, wherein, on 04.05.1989, it was declared that the correct date of birth of the plaintiff was 04.11.1942. The said document has been produced vide Exhibit 21. Thereafter, the plaintiff wrote a letter to the defendant to make changes in his date of birth, dated 29.05.1989, which is produced vide Exhibit 26. The said request of the plaintiff to change the date in the service Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 02:29:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/117/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined record was denied by the defendant by a letter dated January 10, 1990, which is produced vide Exhibit 29. It was only thereafter that the plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 5 of 1990, which was withdrawn on the technical ground that notice under Section 167 of the Gujarat Co- operative Societies Act was not issued. The said withdrawal pursis and the order pursuant to the same are produced vide Exhibit 30.
19. The plaintiff has relied on Exhibits 31 and 32, which is a diary maintained by the Grandfather of the plaintiff, wherein the date of birth of the plaintiff has been stated. Therefore, the fact which this Court must consider is that the period of limitation would commence from the date the plaintiff has proved by cogent evidence that his date of birth is 04.11.1942, which was done on 04.05.1989. The request made by the plaintiff was refused by the defendant. Therefore, the cause of action to file the suit was accrued on January 10, 1990. Thereafter, Civil Suit No. 5 of 1990 was ultimately withdrawn on 07.08.1992, and the Trial Court, while permitting the withdrawal of the said suit, had given liberty to the plaintiff to file a fresh suit. Subsequently, a notice was served by the plaintiff through his advocate on 05.01.1993, under the provisions of the Gujarat Co- operative Societies Act, which is produced vide Exhibit 23, and thereafter, the present suit was filed. Therefore, it cannot be said that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation.
Page 9 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 02:29:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/117/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined
20. The judgments relied upon by the learned advocate for the defendant are not applicable to the facts of the present case in view of the fact that there was an order by the Judicial Magistrate First Class whereby the birth certificate of the plaintiff was changed to the date stated by the plaintiff. Furthermore, in those judgments, there were specific rules which stated that an application for correction of the date of birth must be made within five years of joining, and there is no such condition in the present case.
21. The learned advocate for the plaintiff has relied on the judgment reported in Gujarat State Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd. Vs. Mohmed Ismail Vania, 2013 (1) G.L.H. 802 (Page 8), wherein the Court held that if the correct date of birth was found and if such corrected date is supported by the entry made by the Registrar of Birth and Death Registration, there is no reason as to why the benefit of the correction of the date of birth should not be extended to such a genuine person by the Court. The Court noted that the said judgment is applicable to the facts of the present case.
22. With respect to the fact that the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to hear and decide the dispute, the dispute is not an industrial dispute, nor does it relate to the enforcement of any other right under the Act. Therefore, the remedy lies only in the Civil Court. Moreover, it has also been held that even if the dispute is an Page 10 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 02:29:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/117/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined industrial dispute arising out of a right or liability under the general or common law and not the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is alternative, leaving it to the election of the plaintiff concerned to choose his remedy for the relief to be granted in a particular matter, as held in the case of Tulshi Choudhary Vs. M/S. Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) & Ors. in 2022 Live Law (SC) 668, wherein the Apex Court held that as the issue involved relates to the correction of the date of birth, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not ousted as the same is not a case related to the enforcement of a right or an application under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
23. Therefore, this Court holds that the answer to the Substantial Question of Law is that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that the provisions of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act are not applicable to the claim put forward by the plaintiff in the suit. Moreover, as stated hereinabove, the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the matter and the suit filed before the Civil Court was within the period of limitation and not barred by limitation.
24. In view of the same, the present Second Appeal is dismissed.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J) Manoj Kumar Rai Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 02:29:06 IST 2025