Rewachand Manglani v. State Bank of India and Anr

Judgment

1. State Bank Of India, Through Chief Manager, Regional Head Office, Tilak Marg, Jaipur-302005.

2. Pension And Gratuity Department, State Bank Of India Through Chief Manager (P.p.g.) Regional Head Office Tilak Marg, Jaipur-302005 ----Respondents For Appellant(s)

: Mr. Tanveer Ahamad, Adv. with Mr. Aditya Bhatt, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sonal Singh, Adv. for Mr. Alok Garg, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA 16/07/2025 Order This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellant- plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 28.01.2020 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 14, Jaipur Metropolitan (for short 'the first appellate Court') in civil regular appeal No. 91/2019 titled as "Rewachand Manglani Vs. State Bank of India and Anr.", whereby the first appellate Court while dismissing the appeal affirmed the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2019 passed by Additional Civil Judge & Metropolitan Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short 'the trial Court') in civil suit No. [2025:RJ-JP:26583] (2 of 5) [CSA-185/2020] 673/2009, by which the trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents- defendants (for short 'the defendants') mentioning therein that plaintiff was appointed under the defendants' Bank in the year

1963. At the time of appointment, the plaintiff presented the record of his date of birth, which is in the possession of the defendants. According to letter dated 12.07.1999 given to the plaintiff by the bank itself, the plaintiff's date of birth is

21.06.1945. Despite the plaintiff's date of birth i.e. 21.06.1945, he was illegally retired on 28.02.2001. Thus, he was retired 4 years and 4 months earlier than the date of his actual retirement, by considering his date of birth as 07.02.1941. The plaintiff filed writ petition against the said illegal retirement before this Court. This Court vide order dated 08.02.2001, while deciding the writ petition, directed the defendants to decide the plaintiff's case with regard to his date of birth within 10 days under the plaintiff's demand of justice notice by giving cogent reasons. A demand of justice notice was given but without deciding it, the defendants retired him on 28.02.2001. So, date of birth of the plaintiff be corrected. Defendants filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that date of birth of the plaintiff is 07.02.1941 but he did not raise any objection till 2001. There is no supporting document with regard to change of date of birth of the plaintiff. So, suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:26583] (3 of 5) [CSA-185/2020] On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- "1- vk;k fd okni= dh pj.k la[;k 3 ds vuqlkj izfroknhx.k }kjk oknh dh tUefrfFk xyr ekurs gq, mls voS/k :i ls lsokfuo`Rr dj fn;k x;k\ 2- vk;k fd oknh izfroknhx.k }kjk tkjh lsokfuo`fRr ds vkns'k fnukad 28-02-2001 dks 'kwU; ?kksf"kr djokus rFkk blh vk/kkj ij lEiw.kZ uks'kuy isU'ku o vU; lsok ykHk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 3- vk;k fd oknh izfroknhx.k ls ekufld larki ds :i esa gtkZ izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 4- vk;k fd oknh }kjk izLrqr ;g okn jslT;wfMdsVk ds vk/kkj ij [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS\ 5- vk;k fd oknh }kjk izLrqr okn vof/k&ckf/kr gS\ 6- vuqrks"k\^^ The plaintiff did not present himself for cross-examination, as a result of which, his evidence was closed on 13.11.2018. The defendants got examined DW-1-Inder Kumar. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 25.02.2019, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff challenged the said judgment and decree dated

25.02.2019 passed by the trial Court by way of an appeal and the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 28.01.2020, dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2019 passed by the trial Court. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that trial court as well as the first appellate Court wrongly dismissed the suit as well as appeal filed by the plaintiff. He further submits that his date of [2025:RJ-JP:26583] (4 of 5) [CSA-185/2020] birth is 21.06.1945 but defendants wrongly retired him earlier than the date of his actual retirement considering his date of birth as 07.02.1941. So, the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2019 passed by the trial Court and the judgment and decree dated

28.01.2020 passed by the first appellate Court be set aside and the appeal filed by the plaintiff be admitted on the substantial questions of law as framed in the memo of appeal. Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff and submits that plaintiff did not appear for his cross-examination. So, his evidence was closed on 13.11.2018. Plaintiff failed to prove that his date of birth is 21.06.1945. Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the defendants has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited & Ors. Vs. T.P. Nataraja & Ors." in civil appeal Nos. 5720- 5721/2021 decided on 21.09.2021. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as learned counsel for the defendants. It is an admitted position that plaintiff failed to adduce cogent evidence that his date of birth is 21.06.1945. After giving several opportunities, he did not appear for his cross-examination. So, his evidence was closed on 13.11.2018. Therefore, the plaintiff failed to prove the averments as mentioned in the plaint by him. So, the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court have not committed any error in dismissing the suit as well as the appeal [2025:RJ-JP:26583] (5 of 5) [CSA-185/2020] filed by the plaintiff. Therefore, no substantial question of law is made out for admitting the present appeal. So, the present appeal filed by the plaintiff being bereft of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. Tahir/82 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J