ADARSH KUMAR JAIN Vs. MULTI ENGINEERING SERVICES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the plaintiff. He is aggrieved by the order dated 16.1.2007 declining the prayer made to amend the plaint. Reason which has weighed with the court is that inspite of the objection taken in the written statement to the maintainability of the suit, written statement being filed on 23.2.2000, amendment was sought only on 18.9.2005. In the interregnum issues were framed and plaintiff filed affidavit by way of evidence. He failed to subject himself to cross-examination and repeatedly sought adjournment.

(2.) Petitioner was appointed as a Manager by the respondent and his services were terminated on 12.8.1999. He filed a suit for declaration praying that letter of termination be declared null and void. He sought mandatory injunction to be reinstated in service. He also prayed that a decree in sum of Rs.1,03,700/- for past dues. Prayer 'D' in the plaint was to direct the defendant to pay to him salary @ Rs. 32,650/- p.m. by way of mesne profits till he is reinstated.

(3.) Plaintiff realized that he can not be reinstated and has to seek quantified damages; that loss of salary could not be claimed as mesne profits.