JUDGMENT G. C. Mathur, J. - 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. 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. 4. The application for amendment was strongly opposed by the defendants on the ground that the amendment would change the entire nature of the suit, that the suit for arrears of salary was time barred and that the court had no jurisdiction to allow the amendment by which the value of the suit would go beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of that court. The Munsif by an order dated October 25, 1971. allowed the application for amendment. Against that order the defendants have come up it revision. 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I have come to the conclusion that this revision must be allowed. It is to be noticed the the reliefs that were claimed in the original suit were for a declaration that the order of reversion and transfer was ultravires, illegal and unenforceable and for an injunction restraining the defendants from given effect to that order. The cause of action of the suit was the order of reversion and transfer. No question of payment or withholding of an salary was raised in the plaint. The main relief now sought by the application for amendment is to add a relief for a decree for Rs. 22,280.07 on account of arrears of pay and allowances for C.P.F. This relief not based upon the cause of action on which the original suit was founded. The main relief now sought by the application for amendment is to add a relief for a decree for Rs. 22,280.07 on account of arrears of pay and allowances for C.P.F. This relief not based upon the cause of action on which the original suit was founded. It is not a cage where the plaintiff has sought the different between the salary of the post which he was holding and the salary of the post to which he was reverted, which could be said to be based on the order of reversion. By the amendment the plaintiff is seeking the entire pay from the date of the passing of the order of reversion till the date on which he, according to himself, ceased to be in service. This amendment, if permitted, will change the entire nature of the case land will bring in a totally new cause of action. 6. Apart from this a suit for the arrears of pay, on the date the application for amendment was filed, was hopelessly barred by time. No reason has been given in the amendment application why the amendment was not sought immediately after the plaintiff ceased to be in service. In these circumstances, there was no justification, whatever, for allowing the plaintiff to amend the plaint and seek a decree for arrears of pay and allowances. 7. The reversion is, accordingly, allowed and the order of Munsif Hawaii dated October 25, 1971, is set aside. The application for amendment is dismissed, except with respect to the addition of paragraph 16-A in the plaint and the deletion of relief 'B'. The amendment in relief 'A' and the consequential addition of paragraph 16-A will be allowed. In the circumstances of the care., the parties will bear their own costs in this revision.