ORDER This is a revision petition and is directed against the order of the learned Munsiff, Manipur dated 9-1-57, by which he refused to allow the plaintiff-petitioners prayer for amendment of the plaint in C. S. No. 173 of 1956. 2 That suit, which is pending was filed on 18-12-56, against the Municipal Board of Imphal, on the assertion that the plaintiff has a right of easement to hold a market on the site in dispute which vests in the defendant but the defendant was interfering with that right. The following reliefs were claimed in the plaint:- "(a) Permission under Or. 1, R. 8 of C. P. C. (b) The plaintiffs said right to hold the market as an easement be declared and in the alternative the plaintiffs right to total compensation for all 342 persons of Rs. 1,900/- be declared. (c) Perpetual Injunction be granted against the defendant restraining it not to cause an interference and obstruction to the plaintiffs enjoyment of the said easement right. (d) Perpetual injunction against the agents-provocateurs be granted, and (e) Costs and other incidental reliefs." 3 On 7-1-57, the plaintiff applied for permission to amend the relief in para 12 (b) of the plaint to read as follows, on the ground that there was an accidental mistake in copying the fair copy of plaint filed in court from the draft prepared : "(b) The plaintiffs said right to hold the market as an easement be declared and in the alternative the plaintiffs reserve to claim right to total compensation for all 342 persons of Rs. 1,900/- if the defendant makes acquisition pending the suit." 4 In the alternative it was also prayed that if the said amendment could not be granted, then the plaintiffs would relinquish the claim for compensation, and they may be permitted to amend the plaint by deleting that part of the claim. It appears that this was lost sight of by the court when dealing with the application for amendment. 5 The application was opposed by the original defendant and the new defendants joined in the suit, and the learned Munsiff rejected the application on the ground that it was not bona fide. It appears that this was lost sight of by the court when dealing with the application for amendment. 5 The application was opposed by the original defendant and the new defendants joined in the suit, and the learned Munsiff rejected the application on the ground that it was not bona fide. 6 An examination of the plaint would show that the contention of the plaintiffs was that they have a right of easement to hold the market on the suit site, and the defendant Board cannot obstruct them in the exercise of that right, unless it acquires that right on payment of compensation. It is clear that for acquiring those rights, the proceedings will not be in a civil court but before the appropriate tribunal having power under the law of land acquisition, and the compensation will be fixed in the first instance by that tribunal. The relief of compensation was thus redundant in the present suit, and could not be gone into or awarded by the court, before whom the suit was filed. The question of compensation had also then not arisen, and would arise only if and when the defendant Board move for the acquisition of that right. In these circumstances the only proper thing was to delete the prayer in respect of it, and that would have also caused no harm or prejudice to the defendants. But the trial court did not allow even that. 7 In view of the fact that the amount of compensation was also taken into consideration for the purpose of court fees payable on the plaint, I am also inclined to the view that most probably the inclusion of that claim was not accidental as alleged. But that would make no difference, as there was no question of reservation of a right which may or may not arise and defended on the action of some other party which may or may not take that action. The order of the court rejecting amendment in that respect cannot therefore be said to be wrong. But it is plain in view of the position narrated above that the court should have allowed the plaintiffs to amend the plaint by deleting the alternative relief for compensation. A plaintiff, has also the absolute right to give up a claim or relief according to his own choice, and the court cannot compel him to retain it. But it is plain in view of the position narrated above that the court should have allowed the plaintiffs to amend the plaint by deleting the alternative relief for compensation. A plaintiff, has also the absolute right to give up a claim or relief according to his own choice, and the court cannot compel him to retain it. The learned Munsiff thus failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in him, in rejecting even permission for the deletion of this part of the relief. 8 I, therefore, allow the prayer as far as the deletion of the relief as regards compensation is concerned, but reject the revision as regards the other amendment. The amendment permitted shall be effected by the plaintiffs before the trial court. In the circumstances of the case, I make no order for costs. Order accordingly.