Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. - (1.) The defendants in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction have preferred the instant revisional application. The reliefs claimed in the suit are as follows: " a) Declaration that the Plaintiff's termination of service by order and/or termination letter dated 17.06.2016 passed and/or issued by the Defendant No.2 on behalf of the defendant No.1 is illegal, invalid, in-operative and of no effect and the plaintiff is still continuing in service of the Defendant No.1; b) Declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to re-instatement with full backwages from the date of termination on 17.06.2016 and upto the date of joining to his service in the post as Assistant General Manager Security in the Office of the Defendant No.1; c) Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants from giving effect or any further effect to the order of termination by letter of termination dated 17.06.2016 issued by the Defendant No.2 to the Plaintiff; d) Damages as available to the Plaintiff, in alternative; e) Cost including Advocate's Fee; f) To pass such or any other or further relief or reliefs to which the Plaintiff is entitled to and as may be deem fit and proper;"
(2.) By the impugned order, the trial court allowed an application for amendment of the plaint after the commencement of trial and closure of the cross-examination of the Plaintiffs' Witness No.1 (P.W. 1).
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that, by such amendment, the defendant/opposite party sought to bring in pleadings to cover up the lacunae of the plaintiff. Since the amendment was preferred at an advanced stage of the suit after the commencement of trial, the same was barred by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is argued that, although it was mentioned in the amendment application that the proposed amendments were subsequent events, the second limb of the amendment, whereby the plaintiff/opposite party introduced his alleged monthly income at the time of termination of his service, which ought to have been well within the knowledge of the plaintiff even prior to the institution of the suit.;