JUDGMENT 1. This appeal under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code is filed by the original defendant against whom the respondent had filed Civil Suit No.10 of 1989 for declaration and mandatory injunction. 2. The case put up by the respondent in the suit is that the respondent has been serving in the appellant-Bank for last 28 years. At the time of entering in service, the date of birth of 17.1.1936 was recorded on the basis of the School Leaving Certificate. After the death of the father of the respondent in the year 1987, the respondent came to know from the diary maintained by his father that his correct birth date was 1.2.1937 and, therefore, the respondent applied for certificate of his birth date from the office of the Mamlatdar. The Mamlatdar issued birth certificate dated 12.2.1987, as per which, the date of birth of the respondent was 1.2.1937. On the basis of such certificate, the respondent applied to make correction in his service record by correcting his birth date as 1.2.1937. However, the appellant Bank rejected such application on the ground that there was some difference in the name of the father of the child in the said certificate. The respondent, therefore, again made an application dated 11.09.1987 which came to be rejected on the ground that at the time of entry in service, the details given in the form were more reliable than the certificate issued by the Mamlatdar and, therefore, the certificate of the Mamlatdar could not be accepted. The respondent, therefore, filed suit seeking declaration that the correct date of birth of the respondent was 1.2.1937 and directing the appellant to carry out necessary correction in the service record of the respondent. 3. The suit was resisted by the appellant by filing written statement at Ex.16 inter alia stating that the respondent when serving on the post of Supervisor, and even after he was promoted on 20.6.1986 as Grade II in the office, made no application on the basis of the certificate of Mamlatdar for correction in the service record about his date of birth. It was stated that unless, the respondent produced a certificate as regards correct date of his birth from the competent court, the date of birth as suggested by the respondent could not be entered into in his service record. It was stated that unless, the respondent produced a certificate as regards correct date of his birth from the competent court, the date of birth as suggested by the respondent could not be entered into in his service record. It is further stated that the entry of 17.1.1936 as date of birth of respondent in the service record was on the basis of the School Leaving Certificate produced by the respondent and right from date of his entry in service i.e. 15.9.1960 till the respondent made application for correction of his birth date on 14.2.1987, the respondent did not take any action for correction of his birth date. It is also stated that the claim of the respondent that the respondent could come to know about his correct date of birth from the diary maintained by his father is on got up facts just to support his belated claim in filing the suit. It is further stated that the appellant is Cooperative Society and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, learned Trial Judge framed the followings main issues, viz.: (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the plaintiff is a resident of Sidhpur village and the date recorded in the office of the Mamlatdar as 1.2.1937 is the date of birth of the plaintiff ? (2) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by jurisdiction ? (3) Whether notice under Section 167 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act is required to be served for the suit of the plaintiff ? and (4) Whether the suit of the plaintiff suffered by non-joinder of the parties and laches ? 5. The parties led oral as well as documentary evidence before the learned Trial Judge and the learned Trial Judge on the basis of the certificate issued by the Mamlatdar at Exh.43 came to the conclusion that the correct date of birth of the respondent was 1.2.1937 and the plaintiff could know about such correct date of birth after the death of his father from the diary maintained by his father. Learned Trial Judge also came to the conclusion that the suit filed by the plaintiff for non-issuance of notice under Section 167 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act would not take the respondent out of the Court because the claim in the suit was not touching the business or the constitution of the Society. Learned Trial Judge thus allowed the suit and ordered the appellant Bank to make correction in the service record of the respondent by entering correct date of birth as of 1.2.1937 on the basis of the certificate issued by the Mamlatdar. 6. The appellant unsuccessfully carried the matter before the first Appellate Court by filing Regular Civil Appeal No.51 of 1993. Before the learned Appellate Judge, the appellant did not press the issue of jurisdiction. As regards the issue of non-issuance of notice under Section 167 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act (for short, 'the Act') for filing the suit, learned Appellate Judge came to the conclusion that the claim in the suit of the respondent could not be said to be touching the business of the Society and relying on the judgments cited at bar, learned Appellate Judge has held that no such notice for filing the suit was required to be served upon the appellant. Learned Appellate Judge, however, though not found in the points for determination, raised a question by observing that, an interesting question is involved in the appeal, whether an employee can get his birth date corrected through the Court ? If yes, 'whether there is any limitation for the same ? One of the points raised for determination by the learned Appellate Judge is whether the respondent proves that his real birth date is 1.2.1937. 7. On independent appreciation of the evidence available on record, learned Appellate Judge came to the conclusion that though the plea of the respondent that entry made in the diary of the father of the respondent was of more than 30 years old, but even if the diary might not be considered to be old document of 30 years, such would never defeat the case of the respondent to prove that the correct date of birth of the respondent was as recorded in the certificate issued by the Mamlatdar. Learned Appellate Judge has observed that what is required to be considered is the certificate issued by the Mamlatdar and the diary was just a base of knowledge for the respondent to apply to the office of the Mamlatdar for correction of birth date. Therefore, even if the diary of the father of the respondent could not be said to be an old document of more than 30 years of age, the same was required to be considered just for a formal proof in favour of the respondent to support his case that, what was recorded in the diary was in fact found from the Government record i.e. Births and Deaths Register. Learned Appellate Judge then considered the certificate in respect of the Births and Deaths Register issued by the Mamlatdar and came to the conclusion that the correct date of birth of the respondent was 1.2.1937 and concurred with the findings recorded by the learned Trial Judge on this issue. However, as regards the delay for making application for correction in the birth date of the service record of the respondent, learned Appellate Judge took note of above facts and also of the fact that there was no service Rule in the appellant Bank providing for limitation for making such application. Learned Appellate Judge then recorded that since the dispute of birth date was not touching the business of the Society, no notice was required under Section 167 of the Act. Accordingly, learned Appellate Judge dismissed the appeal of the appellant by judgment and decree dated 10.1.1994. It is this judgment and decree which is under challenge before this Court in this Appeal. 8. The appeal was admitted by order dated 25.01.1994 on the following substantial questions of law : (1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to decide the dispute of the employees as regards his date of superannuation, when he is a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act and remedy under the industrial Law is available to him and he has the remedy also under Section 96 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act before the Registrar's Nominee? (2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the lower courts were right in law in holding that date of birth of the respondent is 1st February 1937 and not as recorded in the service record on the basis of the school leaving certificate produced and declaration made by him? 9. As regards the first substantial question of law, formulated by this Court, it is required to be noted that learned first Appellate Judge has already observed that the point of jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not pressed by learned advocate for the appellant. Even in this Appeal also, learned advocated for the appellant has not argued such question about the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Therefore, this Court is not required to deal with first question formulated by this Court while admitting this appeal. 10. As regards the second question, the Courts below have already found that the date of birth recorded in the Births and Deaths Register, certified copy of which was provided by the Mamlatdar and produced at Exh.43, is the correct date of birth and not one which is recorded in the school leaving certificate. This finding of fact as regards correct date of birth as 1.2.1937 could not be assailed by the appellant. However, learned advocate Mr. Mitul Shelat for the appellant submitted that since the learned Appellate Judge has already raised question about the limitation, for the purpose of correction in the birth date and since that is the core question which is required to be considered in this appeal, this Court may formulate substantial question of law that whether the Courts below were justified in allowing the suit of the respondent for declaration as regards the birth date of the respondent, correction in respect of which was applied for by the respondent after a period of 27 years. He submitted that such question arise from the pleadings as also from the admitted evidence. Learned Appellate Judge has already raised question of limitation for correction of the birth date and, therefore, the above question is required to be raised in the interest of justice. 11. He submitted that such question arise from the pleadings as also from the admitted evidence. Learned Appellate Judge has already raised question of limitation for correction of the birth date and, therefore, the above question is required to be raised in the interest of justice. 11. It appears to the Court that the above is the main question arise for consideration of this Court and therefore, following substantial questions of law are formulated for consideration of this Court: (1) Whether the respondent was entitled for change of his birth date in his service record after a period of 27 years ? (2) Whether the Courts below were justified in granting declaration in favour of the respondent as regards his correct birth date after a period of 27 years ? 12. I have heard learned advocates for the parties, on the above substantial questions of law. 13. Learned advocate Mr.Mitul Shelat for the appellant submitted that since the date of birth of the respondent was entered in service record at the instance of the respondent on the basis of the School Leaving Certificate produced by him, the respondent after a long period of 27 years was not entitled to correction of the birth date in his service record. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that to come out from the gross delay in making application for correction of birth date, the respondent has just found out with an excuse of finding out the diary maintained by his father after the death of his father. He submitted that such ground is not required to be considered because the diary of the father of the respondent was found contained many other particulars and from the contents of the diary, it appears that the diary was regularly maintained and the respondent could not be believed to say that he came to know about the diary only after the death of his father. He submitted that in fact, except alleged fact of finding out diary, after the death of the father of the respondent, there is no explanation put-forth by the respondent for making application for correction of the birth date after a long period of 27 years. He submitted that in fact, except alleged fact of finding out diary, after the death of the father of the respondent, there is no explanation put-forth by the respondent for making application for correction of the birth date after a long period of 27 years. He, therefore, submitted that as per the settled law on the issue of correction of birth date, the claim of the respondent for correction of birth date was since at highly belated stage, such claim was not required to be accepted by the Courts below. In support of his arguments, learned advocate Mr.Shelat has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Premlal Shrivas, reported in (2011) 9 SCC 664 and pointed out that as per the said decision, the Courts below were not justified in allowing the suit of the respondent for correction of the birth date in service record after a long delay 27 years. 14. On the other hand, learned advocate Ms. Mariya Dalal for learned advocate Mr.Yatin Soni for the respondent submitted that the judgment cited by the learned advocate for the appellant is not applicable to the facts of the present case and it is not ruled by Hon'ble Supreme Court that in all cases of delay in claiming for correction of birth date, irrespective of circumstances of individual case, claim is not to be accepted. She submitted that the claim for correction of birth date is to be decided on the basis of the fact of each case because it is to the always satisfaction of the Court which will decide the cause in the claim and if in given fact situation, the Court is satisfied that even at belated stage, the claim is required to be entertained then the Court in such case would be justified in allowing such belated claim. In support of her above arguments, learned advocate Ms.Mariya Dalal has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another Vs. In support of her above arguments, learned advocate Ms.Mariya Dalal has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another Vs. Major Bahadur Singh, reported in (2006) 1 SCC 368 and pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held and observed in the said decision that the Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing and considering the facts of the case before them as one additional and/or different fact of the case before the Court may make a world of difference and, therefore, the Courts while relying upon the decisions have to keep in mind and consider the facts of the case to which such decisions are requested to be applied. As regards the delay, learned advocate for the respondent submitted that in fact, there was no delay on the part of the respondent in making application for correction of the birth date in his service record. She submitted that till the father of the respondent was alive, the respondent never knew that his date of birth was recorded in personal diary of his father. After the death of the father of the respondent, when the diary was found, the respondent came to know that the diary was maintained by his father which contained not only his birth date but also the birth dates of his brother and sister with other particulars. She submitted that on the basis of such information, the cause had arisen for the respondent to ask the certificate from the Mamlatdar and on getting certificate from the office of the Mamlatdar, the respondent could apply for making correction of the birth date to the appellant. She, therefore, submitted that in such fact situation, it could not be said that there was delay on the part of the respondent in making application for correction of the birth date. Learned advocate for the respondent further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Premlal Shrivas (Supra) has not ruled that in all facts situation, irrespective of availability of genuine reason for making application for correction of birth date after a long period, the Court should not accept the claim for correction of the birth date. Learned advocate for the respondent further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Premlal Shrivas (Supra) has not ruled that in all facts situation, irrespective of availability of genuine reason for making application for correction of birth date after a long period, the Court should not accept the claim for correction of the birth date. She submitted that in the said decision, in fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that unless the Court or Tribunal is fully satisfied on the basis of the irrefutable proof relating to the birth date and unless claim is made in accordance with the procedure of the department concerned, the Court should be loath to issue a direction for correction of the service book. From the above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, she pointed out that if the court is otherwise satisfied that there is a genuine reason for the applicant to make application for correction of birth date at belated stage, the Court would be fully justified to exercise its powers for passing order for necessary correction in the birth date in the interest of justice. She submitted that both the courts below have examined the facts of the case and on the basis of the evidence available on record found that the respondent came to know about his correct birth date after the death of his father. The Courts below have also found that the date of birth recorded in the certificate issued by the office of Mamlatdar is correct date of birth. Such findings are not permissible to be assailed in second appeal and in fact it is not so assailed. She has relied on one more judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Cement Corporation of India Limited Vs. Raghbir Singh and another, reported in AIR 2002 SC 509 and it is pointed out that in the said case, though claim for correction of birth date was made after retirement of the employee still the claim was entertained and benefits were granted to him. She submitted that in view of the above said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if the claim for correction of the birth date is found to be genuine such claim should not be thrown away simply on the ground of delay without considering the facts and circumstances quashing the delay in making application for correction. She submitted that in view of the above said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if the claim for correction of the birth date is found to be genuine such claim should not be thrown away simply on the ground of delay without considering the facts and circumstances quashing the delay in making application for correction. When the Courts below have entertained the claim of the respondent, this Court may not interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below simply on the ground that there was delay in making application by the respondent; especially when the respondent was not responsible for delay in making application for correction of his birth date. She, thus, urged to dismiss the appeal. 15. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having perused the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below with the Record & Proceedings, it appears that the father of the respondent had maintained and recorded, the birth dates of his children including the respondent in his diary. The diary maintained by the father of the respondent is produced on record at Ex.41. This Court has perused the diary. The diary is old one wherein the father of the respondent had in his own handwriting recorded various other details including particulars about the date of birth of his children in vernacular. This Court has also scanned through Ex.43 which is stated to be the certificate issued by the Mamlatdar, confirming the date of birth as of 1.2.1937. This Court finds that what is stated to be certificate issued by the Mamlatdar, is in fact, an extract of Birth and Deaths Register and the same is certified by the Mamlatdar. This extract of Register of Births and Deaths contains various columns like the column of date of birth, the name of the person, whose date of birth is recorded and names of parents of such persons. The Courts below have relied on Ex.43 to record finding of fact that the correct date of birth of the respondent is 1.2.1937 and this Court having scanned through the said document at Ex.43, finds no reason to doubt the genuineness of the extract of Register of Deaths and Births wherein the entry of date of birth of the respondent is recorded. From the above, it clearly appears that what is recorded in the School Leaving Certificate was not correct date of birth of the respondent. The question still remains as to once School Leaving Certificate was produced at the time of entry in service, could the respondent be permitted after a period of 27 years to have his birth date changed on having come to know that what was recorded by his father in his diary was, in fact, his correct date of birth. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the evidence given by the respondent that diary could be found only after the death of his father is not refuted by the appellant. Therefore, in my view, the Courts below have not committed any error in arriving at finding that the respondent could come to know about his correct date of birth only after the death of his father. If this was the factual position on admitted evidence before the Courts below, it cannot be said that the respondent just kept silent for number of years and made application for correction of the date of birth only at the fag end of service. It is required to be noted that after obtaining certificate from the office of the Mamlatdar in the year 1987, the respondent immediately made application to the appellant without wasting any more time. When the application was made by the respondent in the year 1987, fives years still remained in his service. It is not the case that the respondent made application for correction of his birth date only in last of 1 or 2 years of his service. The respondent could successfully prove before the Court by cogent evidence that he acquired the knowledge of his correct date of birth only after the death of his father and the fact of his correct date of birth then got support by the certificate of the Mamlatdar at Ex.43. The correct date of birth was recorded in the Register of Births and Deaths and still, there was no knowledge on the part of the respondent about the entry of his correct date of birth in the said Register. The correct date of birth was recorded in the Register of Births and Deaths and still, there was no knowledge on the part of the respondent about the entry of his correct date of birth in the said Register. Therefore, when the respondent came to know about such fact of recording his date of birth in the diary of his father and found confirmed in Register of Births and Deaths and when at that stage if the respondent immediately made application, in my view it could not be said that the respondent was responsible for delay in making application for correction of birth date. 16. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Premlal Shrivas, (Supra) relied on by learned advocate for the appellant, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held and observed in paragraph Nos.8, 11 and 17 as under :- 8. It needs to be emphasised that in matters involving correction of date of birth of a Government servant, particularly on the eve of his superannuation or at the fag-end of his career, the Court or the Tribunal has to be circumspect, cautious and careful while issuing direction for correction of date of birth, recorded in the service book at the time of entry into any Government service. Unless, the Court or the Tribunal is fully satisfied on the basis of the irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth and that such a claim is made in accordance with the procedure prescribed or as per the consistent procedure adopted by the department concerned, as the case may be, and a real injustice has been caused to the person concerned, the Court or the Tribunal should be loath to issue a direction for correction of the service book. Time and again this Court has expressed the view that if a Government servant makes a request for correction of the recorded date of birth after lapse of a long time of his induction into the service, particularly beyond the time fixed by his employer, he cannot claim, as a matter of right, the correction of his date of birth, even if he has good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous. No Court or the Tribunal can come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights (See: Union of India v. Harnam Singh). 11. No Court or the Tribunal can come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights (See: Union of India v. Harnam Singh). 11. Viewed in this perspective, we are of the opinion that the High Court committed a manifest error of law in ignoring the vital fact that the respondent had applied for correction of his date of birth in 1990, i.e., 25 years after his induction into service as a constable. It is evident from the record that the respondent was aware ever since 1965 that his date of birth as recorded in the service book is 1st June, 1942 and not 30th June, 1945. It had come on record of the Tribunal that at the time of respondent's medical examination, his age as on 27th September, 1965 was mentioned to be 23 years and his father's name was recorded as Gayadin; and in his descriptive roll, prepared by the Senior Superintendent of Police as well, his father's name was shown as Gayadin and his date of birth as 1st June, 1942 and this document was signed by the respondent and the form of agreement known as "Mamuli Sipahi Ka Ikrarnama" was filled up by the respondent himself with the very same particulars. Therefore, it cannot be said that the decision of the Tribunal rejecting respondent's plea that it was for the first time in the year 1990, when he was promoted as Head Constable, that he noticed the error in the service record was vitiated. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the delay of over two decades in applying for the correction of date of birth is ex facie fatal to the case of the respondent, notwithstanding the fact that there was no specific rule or order, framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application could be filed. It is trite that even in such a situation such an application should be filed which can be held to be reasonable. The application filed by the respondent 25 years after his induction into service, by no standards, can be held to be reasonable, more so when not a feeble attempt was made to explain the said delay. It is trite that even in such a situation such an application should be filed which can be held to be reasonable. The application filed by the respondent 25 years after his induction into service, by no standards, can be held to be reasonable, more so when not a feeble attempt was made to explain the said delay. There is also no substance in the plea of the respondent that since Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code does not prescribe the time-limit within which an application is to be filed, the appellants were duty-bound to correct the clerical error in recording of his date of birth in the service book was vitiated. 17. As aforesaid, in the instant case, no evidence has been placed on record by the respondent to show that the date of birth recorded as 1st June, 1942 was due to the negligence of some other person. He had failed to show that the date of birth was recorded incorrectly, due to want of care on the part of some other person, despite the fact that a correct date of birth had been shown on the documents presented or signed by him. We hold that in this fact-situation the High Court ought not to have directed the appellants to correct the date of birth of the respondent under Rule 84 of the said Rules. 17. From the above observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it clearly appears that in the fact situation before the Hon'ble Supreme Court it was held that application for making correction of birth date was after a long period of 25 years without any reasonable cause or genuine reason and the High Court was not justified in directing the department to correct date of birth. Therefore, as rightly submitted by learned advocate for the respondent while relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Major Bnahadur Singh (Supra), that the facts of each case would play vital role in deciding as to whether particular application for correction of birth date is required to be entertained or not even at belated stage. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not laid down an abstract principles of law that in no case where there is a gross delay in making application for correction of birth date, the correction shall be allowed irrespective the circumstances and without considering the grounds for making such application at belated stage. 18. In the case of Cement Corporation of India Limited (Supra) relied on by the learned advocate for the respondent, though claim for correction of birth date was after two years of retirement, the claim was entertained. However, in that case, the order of the Labour Court granting back wages for the period after retirement was denied, but the same was confirmed from the date of filing of the petition before the Labour Court and the interest was also denied on the ground that the employee in that case had not worked for the said period. Thus, it appears that there is no absolute bar in considering the claim for correction of the birth date simply because such claim is made at belated stage. The claim for correction of birth date is required to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case. 19. I have discussed above that the respondent had genuine reason and cause for making application for correction of birth date after a period of 27 years. From the fact situation available on record it cannot be said that the respondent was responsible for making application for correction of birth date at belated stage. If correct date of birth was found out by the respondent after the death of his father and if such correct birth date could get support by the entry made in the Register of Birth and Death, there is no reason as to why such benefit of correction of birth date should not be extended to such a genuine applicant (respondent) by the Court. The Courts below were fully satisfied that the respondent was not responsible for delay in making application and the Courts below were also satisfied on the basis of the documentary evidence that the correct date of birth was as recorded in Register of Births and Deaths and not recorded in the School Leaving Certificate. Such being a finding of fact, I am of the view that the Courts below have not committed any error in allowing the suit of the respondent. Such being a finding of fact, I am of the view that the Courts below have not committed any error in allowing the suit of the respondent. The above substantial questions formulated by me, therefore, stand answered accordingly. The appeal is, therefore, required to be dismissed. It is accordingly, dismissed.