( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed by the original plaintiff against the opponents-defendants under sec. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the order passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division dated 5-2-1974 in Special Civil Suit No. 50 of 1972 below application Ex. 13.

( 2 ) THE facts leading rise to this revision petition briefly stated are as under:petitioner filed Summary Civil Suit No. 1877 of 1969 in the City Civil Court Ahmedabad on 28-8-1969 to recover a sum of Rs. 10 500 the opponents. Preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction was raised and it was held that the City Civil Court Ahmedabad had no jurisdiction to entertain and hear the suit. The plaint was therefore ordered to be returned to the plaintiff (petitioner) for its presentation to the proper Court on 25 Against that order the petitioner had filed Civil Revision Application on 23-10-1972 in this Court and that was rejected by this Court on 25-10-1972. The petitioner took the plaint from the City Civil Court on 25-15-1972 and presented it to the Court of the Civil Judge Senior Division Mehsana on 26-10-1972 and it came to be numbered as Special Civil Suit No- 50 of 1972- In that suit petitioner filed application Ex. 13 for permitting him to amend the plaint. One amendment sought for was to incorporate the facts necessary for condoning the delay made in filing the matter before the Mehsana Court on the ground that he was bona fide prosecuting the suit on the same cause of action in the City Civil Court Ahmedabad but the said Court has returned the plaint to him for presenting it to the proper Court on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to hear the suit. That amendment is allowed by the trial Court. We are therefore not concerned with that amendment.

( 3 ) THE second amendment sought for was for adding a claim for the interest amount that is alleged to have fallen due till the date of presen- tation of the suit before the Court. That amendment has been disallowed by the trial Court on the ground that it was necessary to include this claim of interest which had become due till the date of the presentation of the plaint before the Court while presenting the plaint before the Court. But as the petitioner had not done so it assumes the position of the relinquished claim in view of the provisions of Order 2 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (which will be hereinafter referred to as the Code 9 ) and in view of sub-rule (2) of rule (2) of Order 2 of the Code plaintiff shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished. According to the learned trial judge it was the legal right that accrued in favour of the defendents and any such amendment taking away that right cannot be allowed. It is on this reasoning that he has disallowed this prayer made by the petitioner.

( 4 ) THE petitioner by this amendment sought for including his claim of interest of Rs. 3 790 for the period from 28--8-1969 to 25-10-1973. Interest was calculated on the principal amount of Rs. 10 0 at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. He also prayed for consequential changes in the prayer clause on that basis.

( 5 ) MR. B. R. Shelat appearing for Mr. C. N. Desai for the petitioner has contended that the reasoning of the learned trial Judge is not sound. The learned trial Judge submitted Mr. Shelat has not borne in mind the relevant provisions of Order 2 rule 2 of the Code and has mis-understood its real content.

( 6 ) ORDER 2 rule 2 of the Code reads: (1) Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action; but a plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any Court. (2) Where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of or intentionally relinquishes any portion of his claim he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished. MR. Shelat has submitted that it was true that at the time of re-