FA/524/1980 3/ 3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 524 of 1980 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ====================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ====================================== CHAMPAKLAL HIRALAL MEHTA Versus AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ====================================== Appearance : MR NK MAJMUDAR for Appellant. MS D SHAH for MR SN SHELAT for Respondent. ====================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 07/07/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By
way of this appeal, original plaintiff of Civil Suit No.3767 of 1977
challenged judgment and order of City Civil Court dated 30-11-1979,
whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.
2. The
facts in brief, as emerging from record, are as under:
3. Plaintiff
had filed a suit being Civil Suit No.3767 of 1977 before the City
Civil Court, Ahmedabad, for declaration that the plaintiff’s date of
birth is 13-10-1922 and he has a right to get his birth date
corrected from 13-10-1919 to 13-10-1922 and to continue in service
till he attains the age of 58 years. Plaintiff also sought a
declaration that decision of not correcting his date of birth is
invalid and the plaintiff has prayed for permanent injunction
restraining defendant and its officers from retiring the plaintiff
from service on the ground that he has completed 58 years. The
plaintiff realized about his correct date of birth when his elder
sister told him that her birth date is 10th July 1921 and
since he is younger to his sister and the last child of their parents
his birth date is 13-10-1922. Therefore, the plaintiff made an
application along with his affidavit to correct his date of birth and
accordingly, municipality at Rajpipla recorded plaintiff’s date of
birth as 13-10-1922. Thereafter, plaintiff made attempts to correct
his date of birth in his service record but the officer of the
respondent refused to do so. Therefore, the appellant ¿ plaintiff
has filed aforesaid suit. In the said suit, the defendants have
filed their written statement and stated that at the time of entry in
service, the appellant produced certificate of matriculation wherein
his birth date is shown as 13-10-1919 and he cannot back out from his
own admission after a long time of about 25 years. It is also stated
that on the basis of certificate issued by municipality at Rajpipla
or an affidavit made by the appellant ¿ plaintiff himself, no
correction can be made in his date of birth in service records.
Accordingly, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. After
considering the evidence on record, trial Court dismissed the suit by
the impugned judgment. Being aggrieved by it, the appellant has filed
this appeal.
5. Heard
Mr.N.K.Majmudar
for the Appellant and Ms.D.Shah for the Respondent. I
have considered the submissions made on behalf of both the sides and
gone through the judgment of the trial Court and other relevant
documents. Considering the evidence on record, City Civil Court
found that at the time of joining service, appellant has given
matriculation certificate, in which his date of birth is mentioned as
13-10-1919 and the plaintiff had applied for correction in his date
of birth as late as in November 1976 when hardly 11 months have
remained for his retirement. I am in complete agreement with the
reasonings given and finding arrived at by the City Civil Court that
the appellant has approached the trial Court at the fag end of his
career. No other evidence is shown to me to take a contrary view.
Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned
judgment.
6. For
the reasons stated herein above, the appeal deserves to be dismissed
and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(K.S.Jhaveri,
J.)
/malek