Short Note : 1. This is a revision by the applicant (plaintiff) against the order dated 14.2.1978 whereby his application for amendment of the plaint was rejected. 2. The Court below recorded evidence and the case was posted for argument. This stage was reached after ten years during which the applicant had already amended his plaint twice. The amendment application under Rule 17 of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure is Annexure "C" to this revision by which he seeks to claim damages for contract as an alternative relief. 3. It is apparent that the suit was instituted in the year 1968 in between, two amendments of the plaint were done by the applicant as is clear from the lower Court's order and after the pendency of ten years, the evidence of both the parties has been closed and the case is fixed for argument. This amendment application has been made at the argument stage and apparently, it is unduly delayed for which there appears to be no cogent reason. It will be in the interest of justice that the suit is decided on the pleadings of the parties in the light of the evidence adduced and thereafter, if the decision goes against the applicant, he could urge before the superior Court, if he decides to file an appeal, that his application for amendment was wrongly rejected. It is in the interest of justice that this long pending suit is not protracted and is disposed of at an early date. 4. Annexure "A" of the revision shows that the applicant himself admitted in paragraph 4 that he was appointed to the post of Labour Officer with effect from 1.4.1966 by the Chairman and Managing Director of Heavy Electrical's (India) Ltd. and that he holds no lien on his previous appointment to the post of Deputy Hostel Warden. The applicant has given various reasons in the plaint why findings in the departmental enquiry held against him were vitiated. According to the applicant, the removal order was illegal and that he continued to be on duty claiming reliefs on the basis that he still continued to be in service. Now, he wants to change these pleadings and substitute a claim for breach of contract as an alternative relief. According to the applicant, the removal order was illegal and that he continued to be on duty claiming reliefs on the basis that he still continued to be in service. Now, he wants to change these pleadings and substitute a claim for breach of contract as an alternative relief. There is thus shift in the stand of the applicant and, therefore, it could not be urged that there is no attempt to introduce a new plea at the fanged of the trial. AIR 1958 SC 36 , 1975 JLJ 113, 1977 (2) WN 123, 1977 (2) WN 279 and 1977 (2) WN 450 referred to. AIR 1957 SC 444 , AIR 1967 SC 96 and AIR 1977 SC 680 relied on. Revision dismissed.