GOSWAMI, C. J.:- This second ap­peal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Assistant Dis­trict Judge, Silchar, reversing those ear­lier of the learned Munsiff. 2. The plaintiff's case in the plaint Is as follows: He is an Indian citizen by birth. He was born in 1911 at village Dakhin Krishnapur under Silchar Police Station, Cachar District, Assam. He has his ancestral home in that village. He was employed as a Clerk in the Office of the Inspector of Agriculture, Silchar, and he continued to serve as such till the partition of India in 1947. At the time of partition, he was asked to signify his choice as to which of the two Domi­nions he wanted to serve. Thinking that his native District of Cachar would fall in the newly formed Dominion of Pakistan, he provisionally opted in favour of Pakistan. Subsequently when he found that the district of Cachar was allowed to remain with the rest of India, he wanted to change his provisional op­tion finally in favour of India. The authority concerned did not allow him to do so; instead he was released from his service and was asked to go to East Pakistan and report for necessary post­ing. The plaintiff therefore relunctantly went to Pakistan and joined as a Clerk in the Agricultural Department at Sylhet, East Pakistan, leaving his wife and child­ren at Dakhin Krishnapur. Since his posting at Sylhet, he had been conti­nuously trying to get transfer to Cachar and was having communication with the Government of Assam. He finally took a Pakistani passport and returned to India in November, 1960. The plaintiff relies upon a letter dated 30-7-60 of the Under-Secretary to the Government of Assam addressed to him at Sylhet with regard to his application dated 27th May, 1960 for acquiring Indian citizenship. It is stated in that letter Ext. He finally took a Pakistani passport and returned to India in November, 1960. The plaintiff relies upon a letter dated 30-7-60 of the Under-Secretary to the Government of Assam addressed to him at Sylhet with regard to his application dated 27th May, 1960 for acquiring Indian citizenship. It is stated in that letter Ext. A: "the case of a Pakistan optee per­son is considered in the light of the pro­visions of the Indian Citizenship Laws and therefore, the question of registra­tion as Indian citizen will arise only in case of an optee person who has re­turned to India and who has been ordinarily resident here for a period of 6 (six) months immediately preceding the date of his formal application for registration." The plaintiff particularly avers in para­graph 3 of the plaint that after his re­turn to India in 1960 he began to reside at his ancestral home permanently and after six months applied for "necessary registration under the Indian Citizenship Act ............" and that the application was till then under consideration of the Government. As he was served with a quit India notice, he has brought this suit for declaration of his right of citizenship and for permanent injunc­tion. 3. The defendants denied his claim and stated that the plaintiff opted for service under the Pakistan Govern­ment and migrated to Pakistan from India and served there till the later part of 1960. The plaintiff came to India on 2-11-1960 with a Pakistan pass­port and Indian visa which was valid up to 21-9-1961 but he continued his unauthorised stay after the expiry of the said period. His case was placed before the Foreigners Tribunal which also held him to be a foreigner. The defendants further stated that the plain­tiff has acquired the citizenship of Pakistan by voluntarily migrating there. Besides, obtaining of the Pakistan pass­port conclusively proves that he re­nounced the Indian citizenship and ac­quired that of Pakistan. The defendants stated that the Central Government is the only authority in a case of this description and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 4. Although eleven issues were framed in the trial Court, the only issue that is of importance and which was pressed in the appellate Court as well as here is Issue No. 11, which is; "Is the plaintiff a citizen of India?" 5. The plaintiff examined three witnesses including himself. 4. Although eleven issues were framed in the trial Court, the only issue that is of importance and which was pressed in the appellate Court as well as here is Issue No. 11, which is; "Is the plaintiff a citizen of India?" 5. The plaintiff examined three witnesses including himself. No wit­ness was examined by the defendants. Both the Courts held, and in our opin­ion rightly, that the suit is not barred under Section 9 (2) of the Citizenship Act. The trial Court held that the plaintiff was an Indian citizen and he did not voluntarily migrate to Pakistan within the meaning of Article 7 of the Constitution of India. The learned Munsiff observed as follows: "This, for the sake of his job he had to go to Pakistan and acquire the citizenship of that country. Now there is no documentary evidence here to show his trying to change the provisional option or his giving the final option in favour of India. In the plaint he does not speak of his giving any such final option and there he only says that he wanted to change the provisional option. He also gives divergent stories in the plaint, evidence and affidavit Ext. E re­garding the factor which led him to give the provisional option in favour of Pakistan. So we have to look to the circumstances in order to examine his allegation. * * * * He gave up the service in Pakistan and took out a Pakistan passport as there was no other way to come back to India. Ultimately on receipt of the letter from the Government of Assam mentioned above (of 30th July 1960), which practically invited him, he came back. Thus, the conduct of the plaintiff all through before and after he left for Pakistan, clearly shows that he was an unwilling visitor to that country. He did not go there voluntarily. He went only for the service and he was made to go by discharging from the office here and without allowing him to change the provisional option. He never migrated to Pakistan within the mean­ing of Article 7 nor he voluntarily ac­quires the citizenship of Pakistan within the meaning of Article 9 of the Consti­tution of India. He went only for the service and he was made to go by discharging from the office here and without allowing him to change the provisional option. He never migrated to Pakistan within the mean­ing of Article 7 nor he voluntarily ac­quires the citizenship of Pakistan within the meaning of Article 9 of the Consti­tution of India. He was a citizen of India on 26-11-49 when Article 5 of the Constitution came into force and he has not lost that status uptill now." The plaintiff's suit was thus decreed by the learned Munsiff. 6. The learned Assistant District Judge dealing with the same issue, rely­ing upon a decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1966 SC 1614 , Kulathil Mammu v State of Kerala, held that the migration of the plaintiff was voluntary and was not for any specific purpose nor for a short and limited period and therefore Article 7 was attracted in his case and he shall not be deemed to be a citizen of India. The appellate court did not place any reliance on his evidence that he gave his provisional option under in­stigation from one Abdul Kadir Chou-dhuri, Director of Agriculture, who was not even examined as a witness. Regard­ing his final option for India, the appel­late court rejected his version and held that the letter Ext. A dated 30th July, 1960. which the plaintiff has relied upon, does not guarantee him anything far less, registration as Indian citizen. The appellate court noticed the averment in paragraph 3 of the plaint set out above and after appreciating the entire oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that he was not a citizen of India at the commencement of the Con­stitution. 7. Before dealing with the sub­mission of the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to Article 7 of the Constitution, it is necessary to dispose of his application for taking additional evidence in this case under Order 41, Rule 27, Civil P. C. The plaintiff call­ed for certain documents by an applica­tion before the trial court on 18-3-67, and the learned Munsiff passed the necessary orders calling for those papers. The defendants, in pursuance of that order, produced certain documents on 3-4-67, the date fixed for hearing of the case. The defendants, in pursuance of that order, produced certain documents on 3-4-67, the date fixed for hearing of the case. After seeing these papers, the plaintiff did not make any further pray­er to the Court and examined his wit­nesses, and the case was closed on the same day, as the defendants declined to adduce any evidence. No application under Order 41, Rule 27 was filed be­fore the appellate court. We have gone through the application, but in the en­tire circumstances of the case, we do not think that it is a fit case where we should exercise our discretion in allow­ing additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27, Civil P. C. 8. The main question that comes up for consideration is whether the migration of the plaintiff to Pakistan to serve under the Pakistan Government comes within the meaning of 'migration' in Article 7 of the Constitution of India. Article 7 reads as follows: "Notwithstanding anything in Arti­cles 5 and 6, a person who has after the first day of March, 1947, migrated from the territory of India to the territory now included in Pakistan shall not be deemed to be a citizen of India: Provided that nothing in this Article shall apply to a person who, after having so migrated to the territory now included in Pakistan, has returned to the territory of India under a permit for resettlement or permanent return issued by or under the authority of any law and every such person shall for the pur­poses of clause (b) of Article 6 be deem­ed to have migrated to the territory of India after the nineteenth day of July, 1948." The Supreme Court in AIR 1966 SC 1614 (supra) has observed as follows:- (In para 6): "............it seems to us clear that when Article 6 as well as Article 7 use the word 'migrated', the intention must have been to give the wider meaning to that word, namely, go­ing from one territory to the other." Again (In para 11): "Even so we are of opinion that there is one qualification which must be attached to the word "migrated" as used in these two Arti­cles, even though that word has the wider meaning of going from one place to another in the context of these Arti­cles. That qualification is that the move­ment should have been voluntary and should not have been for a specific pur­pose and for a short and limited period." We have therefore to consider this case in the background of the law laid down in the above decision. The intention of the plaintiff being immaterial in this case, the migration under Article 7 of the Constitution is complete, if the same cannot be held to be involuntary, or for a specific purpose and for a short and limited period. Ext. E is an affidavit sworn by the plaintiff before the Magi­strate, First Class, Silchar, on 21-11-60 after his return to India. He states there that he resigned from Pakistan service in the later part of 1959 and came to India on 2-11-60 on the strength of a Pak-passport dated 23-4-60 and that he had no mind to go back to East Pakistan either for service or for residing there permanently. He has neither any rela­tion nor any property in East Pakistan Paragraph 10 of that affidavit may be quoted: "That I bear good faith and true al­legiance to the Indian Constitution. 1 wish to reside in India as a true citizen here. I further undertake to be abided (sic) by the Indian laws as established for residing in India. I renounce the Pak citizenship which I acquired by residing there for service." He also stated in evidence that he went to Pakistan after March, 1948 and ad­mitted to have sworn the affidavit Ext. E. He, however, stated in his evidence that he had not applied for citizenship certificate which is contradicted by Ext. A and his averment in paragraph 3 of the plaint. It is therefore clear from the evidence of the plaintiff and from Exts. A and E that he considered himself a Pakistan citizen and as such obtained a Pakistani passport to visit India and re­turning here he wanted to renounce Pakistani citizenship, and applied for registration as Indian citizen under the provisions of the Indian Citizenship Act. 9. From the above facts, it is clear that the plaintiff on his own show­ing was a Pakistani citizen and his ap­plication for being registered as an In­dian citizen is still pending with the Government of Assam. He has therefore failed to establish his right of citizen­ship under Article 5 of the Constitution of India. 9. From the above facts, it is clear that the plaintiff on his own show­ing was a Pakistani citizen and his ap­plication for being registered as an In­dian citizen is still pending with the Government of Assam. He has therefore failed to establish his right of citizen­ship under Article 5 of the Constitution of India. Since he was not in India at the commencement of the Constitution and had already migrated to Pakistan for serving the Pakistan Government which he did nearly twelve years, his case is clearly a case of migration within the meaning of Article 7 of the Consti­tution of India. Since he has migrated from the territory of India to Pakistan after 1st March, 1947, he shall not be deemed to be a citizen of India under Article 7. If he wants to return to India, he is bound to comply with the proviso to Article 7, which provides for a re­turn to India under a permit for re­settlement or for permanent return is­sued by a competent authority. We are clearly of opinion that the plaintiff's case cannot be said to be an involuntary migration forced on him, nor one for a short and limited period or for a speci­fic purpose. There is, therefore, no er­ror, of law in the decision of the learn­ed Assistant District Judge and the plaintiff's suit has been rightly dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. M. C. PATHAK, J.:- 11. I agree. Appeal dismissed.