1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1813 OF 2010 Friends of Moral Re-Armament (India) .. Petitioner versus Mrs.Rosalind Clerence Joseph .. Respondent Mr.D.J.Bhange for the petitioner. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 15th March 2010. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner is the original 1st defendant. The respondent is the plaintiff. The respondent filed a suit for declaration that order of discharge dated 31st March 2008 terminating her employment is bad in law, ultra virus and inoperative in law and that she continues to be in uninterrupted service. The second prayer is for directing re-instatement of the respondent. Application for amendment of the plaint was made by the respondent. The amendment sought was for incorporating paragraph 10A. By the amendment it is sought to be contended that after the termination, the respondent-plaintiff could not get any employment and therefore the respondent is entitled to claim damages on account of breach of contract of employment. Further amendment is sought by adding a prayer directing the defendants in the suit to pay compensation. By the impugned, order the said amendment has been permitted. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 2 the challenge is to the order permitting amendment of the plaint. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the proposed amendment changes the nature of the suit. He submitted that the amendment is barred by sub-rule 2 of Rule 2 of Order II of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. I have considered the submissions. What has been permitted is only amendment for adding prayer for passing a decree of payment of compensation. Even if amendment is permitted, all defences of the petitioner and other defendants including the defence of bar of limitation and maintainability of claim for damages or compensation always remain open and the said contentions can be agitated by filing additional written statement. The amendment is necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Therefore, in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India no interference can be made with the impugned order. However, all contentions of the petitioner including the contention regarding bar of limitation and maintainability of the prayer for compensation are kept open which can be raised by the petitioner by filing additional written statement. 3. Subject to what is observed above, writ petition is rejected. If additional written statement is not filed by the petitioner till today, the same shall be filed within a period of eight weeks from today. (A.S.OKA,J)