P. N. Nag, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition the petitioner has challenged theorder dated 12/09/1985, passed by Shri Shiv Charan, Sub Judge,1st Class, Delhi, whereby the application of the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule17 seeking amendment to the plaint was rejected. ( 2 ) THE relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff hassought amendment to the plaint to the effect that during the pendency of thesuit the plaintiff has retired from the service of defendant No. 1 on 30thapril, 1985 and that plaint is required to be amended by including the reliefof declaration to the effect that the retirement of the plaintiff is illegal. Theplaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and mandatory permanent injunctionagainst defendant No. 1 that he should be retired on the basis of correctdate of birth i. e. 4th Feb. , 1928 on the ground that he was born on 4th Feb. ,1928 at Dharam Kot, District Ferozepore, Punjab and his date of birth hasbeen wrongly recorded in the service record as 5/04/1927. Accordingto the plaintiff, the plaintiff has served with the office of the Accountantgeneral of Punjab for more than 28 years continously and absorbed thereafter with the defendant Corporation. However, the date of birth of thepetitioner in the service record in the office of the Accountant General ofpunjab as well as the defendant Corporation WAS entered as 5/04/1927inadvertantly and, therefore, it requires correction and it should be recordedas 4/02/1928. ( 3 ) THE trial Court after having examined the record had held thatplaintiff after serving for more than 28 years in the office of the Accountantgeneral, Punjab and was taken by defendant No. 1 in May, 1979. His dateof birth was accepted as 5/04/1927 throughout his career and thepsesent suit filed by the plaintiff is highly belated. Furthermore the plaintiffhas already retired from service after attaining the age of superannuationon 30/04/1985 and his representation was also dismissed in 1989 itself. There is no cause of action arises in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, theamendment is not necessary for determining the question in controversyand the trial Court has rejected the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of thecode of Civil Procedure. There is no cause of action arises in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, theamendment is not necessary for determining the question in controversyand the trial Court has rejected the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of thecode of Civil Procedure. ( 4 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and alsothe finding given by the trial Court, in my opinion, in revision no interference is called for, Even otherwise, as held by me in Tarun Chopra andothers v. Union of India and Others, 1992 (2) Delhi Lawyer 250, therejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule II of the Code of Civil Procedureis deemed to be included in the definition of the decree under Section 2 (2)of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appeal would lie against the impugnedorder. Therefore, the appropriate remedy for the plaintiff would beto invoke the appellate jurisdiction. The revision is not maintainable. Dismissed.