The first set of amendment related to averments in support of the claim for gratuity which had already been alleged in the plaint.
By an order dated 6 July, 1970 the appellant was allowed to amend the plaint as prayed for.
68,000 as damages in relation to his right to pension.
Therefore, the appellate companyrt should number have interfered with the discretion.
The proposed amendments were twofold.
From the Judgment and, Order dated the 29th March, 1971, of the Bombay High Court and Bombay in Appeal No.
The High Court by judgment dated 29 March, 1971 allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 6 July, 1970 allowing the amendment.
By an order dated 19 January, 1970 the appellant was allowed to amend the plaint in respect of the claim for gratuity.
Counsel for the appellant submitted that judgment means a decision finally adjudicating the rights between the parties.
The application for discovery was dismissed in the month of November, 1965.
The second set of amendment related to averments in support of a claim for Rs.
the plaint claiming Rs.
Secondly, it was said that an order allowing the amendment was a discretionary cider.
The respondent preferred an appeal against the order dated 6 July, 1970.
By summons dated 27 April, 1970 the appellant sought an amendment of.
850 per month by way of pension as and from 1 February, 1964 during the life time of the appellant.
The appellants proposed amendment in support of the claim for pension was refused.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
M. Tarkunde and Rameshwar Nath for the appellant K.S. Ramamurthy and B.R. Agarwal for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, C. J. This is an appeal by certificate from the judgment dated 29th March, 1971 of the High Court of Bombay.
The appellant repeated the companytentions which had been advanced before the High Court.
87 of 1970.
1991 of 1971.
The appellant filed this suit on 2 September, 1964 in the High Court of Bombay and claimed six months salary in lieu of numberice and gratuity for 16 years of service.
In the year 1965 the appellant asked for discovery by the respondent of documents relating to pension scheme for foreign employees.
On 16 December, 1969 the appellant took out a Chamber Summons for amendment of the plaint.
