S. D. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Application under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and order of the Joint District judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur dated 24/02/1994, whereby he allowed the Misc. Civil Appeal No. 36 of 1994 preferred by the respondent-plaintiff and set aside the judgment and order dated 20/01/1994, passed by the Court of Civil Judge (S. D.) thereby he restrained the Ahmedabad District Panchayat and taluka Development Officer from retiring the respondent-plaintiff from service on 28/02/1994 till the decision of the suit. He also directed that the suit should be heard expeditiously within four months, but it is reported to this Court that till date the suit is not heard. ( 2 ) THE petitioner-original defendants are aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the Joint District Judge and hence this Civil Revision Application is preferred. ( 3 ) IT may be stated at the outset that the respondent-plaintiff joined in the services of the defendants as Talati-cum-Mantri in the year 1957. At the relevant time, he produced School Leaving Certificate, based on which in his service book, his birth date was entered as 4th of February, 1936. He was obviously, therefore, liable to retire in the month of February, 1994 when he would complete the age of 58 years. In the year 1989 he applied to the District Development Officer of Ahmedabad district Panchayat for change in his birth date, inter alia, stating that as per the entry made in the birth and death register, his birth date was 29/01/1938 and that therefore, his birth date was required to be changed. The District Development officer after proper enquiry and taking into consideration the fact that no application was made for change of birth date within five years from the date of joining the services, by a speaking order rejected the said application. The respondent-plaintiff thereupon preferred Departmental Appeal to Additional Development Commissioner, who also rejected such appeal on 18/11/1992. ( 4 ) THEREAFTER, the respondent-plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 164 of 1993 in the Court of Civil Judge (S. D.), Ahmedabad (Rural) for declaration as well as permanent injunction and by Exhibit-20 he applied the trial Court to restrain the defendants from retiring him from service from February, 1994. ( 4 ) THEREAFTER, the respondent-plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 164 of 1993 in the Court of Civil Judge (S. D.), Ahmedabad (Rural) for declaration as well as permanent injunction and by Exhibit-20 he applied the trial Court to restrain the defendants from retiring him from service from February, 1994. The trial Court by judgment and order dated 20/01/1994, rejected such application for temporary injunction both on the ground that there was no prima facie case and secondly on the ground that balance of convenience was in favour of the defendants and not in favour of the plaintiff. The trial Court also referred to the binding precedents of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court. The trial Court also referred to various Government resolutions, under which an employee is required to apply to the employer for change in the date of birth in service book within the stipulated time. The trial Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that such a belated application made as back as 1989 could not be entertained and even otherwise balance of convenience was in favour of the defendants because even if plaintiff succeeds in the suit, he could be granted monetary relief and it can never be said that irreparable loss will be caused to him which cannot be compensated in terms of money. The third and the most important ingredient of granting ad interim injunction in matter of this nature was very well considered by the trial Court. ( 5 ) THE respondent-plaintiff, however, preferred Civil Misc. Appeal No. 36 of 1994 and Joint District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) by judgment and order dated 2 4/02/1994 allowed the appeal and restrained the defendants from retiring the plaintiff on 28/02/1994, till the decision of the suit. To say the least, it is beyond the comprehension of this Court as to how such an injunction could be granted because despite directions issued by the superior Court, the Civil suits are not decided within the stipulated time. In the present case also, till March 1995 the civil suit is not heard and the resultant effect is that the employee who could have retired in the month of February, 1994 as per the date of birth entered in the service book based on the evidence supplied by him, would continue to serve till the suit is finally decided, may be even after 1996. This Court as well as Supreme Court have strongly deprecated the practice of granting this type of injunction whereby the employees take the advantage of entering the service at the early age by producing some evidence of birth date and thereafter on the eve of their retirement, they approach the authority for change of date of birth. With a view to avoiding this situation, the State of Gujarat has by various Government Resolutions, laid down the guidelines and as per such guidelines, an employee is required to apply for change of birth date in the Service Book within five years from the date of his entry. One fails to understand as to how such guidelines will be ignored especially when the employee is after more than 32 years of service approaches the employer to change the date of birth based on some certificates obtained by him from Birth and Death register. It may be that entry in the Birth and Death Register may be relevant piece of evidence, but that could be decided at the stage of trial and simply by reference to such entry, which is so belatedly produced, the Joint District Judge, in my opinion, was not at all justified in granting injunction, which he has granted. The unnecessary haste shown by him in deciding the appeal also deserves denunciation at the hands of this Court. Within one month, he has disposed of the appeal and such expediency he has rarely shown. The judgment and order of the Jt. District Judge in every respect is against the well established principle of law granting injunction more particularly in service matters the repercussions of which are in most of the cases adverse to the employer, who is forced to continue the employee in service despite his reaching the retirement age. It is further required to be noted that because of the order of stay granted by the trial Court and confirmed by Mr. B. C. Patel, J. on 17/03/1994, the employee is not continued in service and i do not see any reason to sustain the order passed by the Joint District Judge. The order passed by the trial Court was in every respect in total compliance of the ingredience of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and no interference was called for at the hands of Joint District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural ). The order passed by the trial Court was in every respect in total compliance of the ingredience of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and no interference was called for at the hands of Joint District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural ). Hence, the judgment and order of the Jt. District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) is hereby quashed and set aside and the judgment and order of the trial Court is restored. ( 6 ) IN the case of Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department v. R. Kirubakaran, reported in AIR 1993 SC 2647 , the Apex Court speaking through mr. N. P. Singh, J. in no uncertain terms held that as and when application for correction of date of birth is made, ordinarily, the Court or the Tribunal should be slow in granting interim relief for continuation in service unless prima-facie evidence of unimpeachable character is produced. The Apex Court also held that the Court or the Tribunal must not only be slow in granting such injunction, but it must be fully satisfied that if no injunction is granted real injustice would be done to the employee. The Court also noticed that if rule or order has been made or framed, prescribing the period within which such application for correction in the birth date is to be made, then such application must be made within the stipulated time, which can be said to be reasonable time. If the employee fails to produce any evidence in support of such claim within such stipulated period, Court or tribunal should be slow in granting interim relief. The Court also observed that making the application for change in the date of birth just on the eve of retirement, questioning the correctness of the entry in respect of the birth date in the service book, the employee continues in service for months even after the date of superannuation by obtaining injunction from the Court and this is the most unhealthy practice which the Court should not encourage. The Apex Court further observed in Para 7 of the judgment as under :"if an application is made for correction of the date of birth mentioned in the service records at an early date or within the time prescribed, the authorities are in much better position to verify the same. The Apex Court further observed in Para 7 of the judgment as under :"if an application is made for correction of the date of birth mentioned in the service records at an early date or within the time prescribed, the authorities are in much better position to verify the same. Normally, in most of the services, the date of birth is recorded in the service records on the eve of the appointment with reference to the date of birth mentioned in the Matriculation Certificate, Higher secondary Education Board Certificate or any other certificate of similar nature produced by the applicant concerned at the time of making application for his appointment. As such, whenever an application for alteration of the date of birth is made on the eve of superannuation or near about that time, the Court or the Tribunal concerned should be more cautious because of growing tendency amongst a section of public servants to raise such a dispute, without explaining as to why this question was not raised earlier. " ( 7 ) IN view of the rising tendency amongst the class of employees, who know how to continue in service even after reaching age of retirement or when the age of retirement is approaching very fast, by producing some false or unreliable evidence, the same is required to be deprecated and is not to be encouraged by Civil court under any circumstances. The Civil Court must know that if ultimately the plaintiff is to succeed, he can always get the monetary compensation on Court reaching the conclusion that his birth date was not correctly noted. In such circumstances, the Civil Court should not interject itself by granting injunction and by continuing such employee in service for indefinite period or till the suit is decided. Very often, the suits are not decided for years together and the employees continue to serve even beyond the period of superannuation as per the proposed changed date of birth. The learned Jt. District Judge has granted injunction till the suit is decided and if the suit is not decided for years to come, the respondent-plaintiff shall continue in service though Court must mention that he has given the direction that the suit be decided within four months, which direction is flouted by the Civil Court and till date the suit not decided. District Judge has granted injunction till the suit is decided and if the suit is not decided for years to come, the respondent-plaintiff shall continue in service though Court must mention that he has given the direction that the suit be decided within four months, which direction is flouted by the Civil Court and till date the suit not decided. One fails to understand who will bear the consequences if such employee continues in service even beyond February, 1996 and it is for this reason, the Supreme Court has very harshly come down upon the practice of granting injunction of this nature by the Civil Court. In this view of the matter, the judgment and order of the Joint District Judge deserves deprecation and denunciation and is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. ( 8 ) THE hearing of the suit is expedited and the trial Court is directed to decide the suit expeditiously preferably by 31st of December, 1995. The writ of this order to be sent down to M. B. Masaria, the then Joint District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), wherever he is and to the trial Court to comply with the order of this Court. .