Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. - (1.) The present revisional application has been preferred by the defendants in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, against an order whereby the trial court allowed an application for amendment of plaint taken out by the plaintiff/opposite party no. 1.
(2.) The reliefs originally claimed in the suit were as follows: "(a) A decree of declaration that the plaintiff company has every legal right or authority to run the business over the property in suit. (b) An order of permanent injunction may be passed against the defendants, and/or their men and agents restraining them from disturbing the plaintiff's peaceful possession over the suit property and/or from running the plaintiff's business over the same and/or from causing any disturbance or hindrance hampering the plaintiff's business over the suit property and/or from causing any demolition work within the suit property by the defendants and/or from changing the nature and character of the property in suit. (c) For all Costs of the suit. (d) Any other relief or reliefs the plaintiff in law and equity is entitled to get."
(3.) After institution of the suit on April 20, 2013, the defendants issued a notice to the plaintiff/opposite party no. 1 on April 23, 2013, thereby asking the plaintiff to remove all its structures and belongings from the suit property within a period of seven days, further alleging that the property had been handed over to the Assistant Director of Fisheries, North 24 Parganas on April 22, 2013 and purportedly cancelling the licence agreement between the parties dated September 23, 1998 in terms of clause (3) thereof.;