G. C. Mathur, J. - (1.) This is a revision against the order of the Munsif Hawali, Saharanpur, allowing the amendment of the plaint.
(2.) The plaintiff opposite patty was an employee of the Council of scientific and Industrial Research and was posted in the year 1959 at Roackee as Senior Scientific Assistant. An enquiry was held against the plaintiff and ultimately an order dated November 18, 1959, was passed revering the plaintiff to the post of Junior Scientific Assistant and transferring him to the Central Food Technological Research institute Mysore. The plaintiff there upon filed Suit No. 438 of 1959 in the Court of Munsif Hawali challenging the order of reversion and transfer. In the plaint he claimed the following two reliefs:- "(A) That a decree for declaration in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant to the effect that the order No. CSIR/CBRI/VIG/(i) 57 dated 18th November, 1959 passed by the D.G.S.I.R. defendant No. 3 of the defendant No. 1 is ultravires illegal and unenforceable in law and does not affect the legal status and character of the plaintiff who still holds the legal status and character of the S. S. A. of defendant No. 1. (B) That a decree for permanent injunction be passed against the defendants restraining them to revert the plaintiff to J.S.A. and transfer him to C.F.T.R I., Mysore, in pursuance of the order No CSIR/CBRI/VIG/(1)57 dated November 18, 1959 of D.G.S.I.R., defendant No. 3".
(3.) It appears that the plaintiff never joined at Mysore. He started legal practice in Sharanpur district. In 1968 the defendants moved an application for the amendment of the written statement. By this amendment application the defendants sought to take a plea that the plaintiff having ceased to be in service, the suit had become infructous and was liable to be dismissed. This amendment was allowed. On July 17, 1971, the plaintiff was examined by the Munsif under Order 10 Rule 2 C. P. C., in his statement he said that he had ceased to be in service with effect from November 5, 1963 and that he wanted the declaration of his status only upto that date. The Munsif thereupon directed the plaintiff to file a suitable application for amendment. The plaintiff then on August 17, 1971 filed an amendment application. He sought the introduction of new paragraphs 16-A, 16-B, 16-C and 16-D, in the plaint and the amendment in the valuation clause. He further prayed that relief 'B' regarding the injunction be deleted and the following new relief be added:- "That a decree for Rs. 22,280.07 p. on account of arrears of pay allowances for C.P.F. be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant." By the addition of new paragraph 16-A the plaintiff sought to confine his relief of declaration upto November 5, 1963. By the addition of new paragraph 16-B the plaintiff made a claim to a sum or Rs. 20,331.07 p. on account of arrears of pay.;