JUDGMENT Mahesh Grover, J. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 28.04.2006 by which the amendment sought by the petitioner to incorporate an alternate plea seeking Rs. 5 lakhs as damages on account of the wrongful termination of his service has been declined. 2. The petitioner, who was a temporary employee of the respondents, filed a suit in the year 1998 when his services were terminated. 3. Originally, the suit was filed with a prayer that the action of the respondents in terminating the service of the petitioner w.e.f. 22.4.1998 be declared as wrong, illegal and against the rules and principles of natural justice. A prayer for mandatory injunction was also made directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner. 4. The suit was contested by the respondents who filed the written statement in the year 2002 and averred in the same that the suit was not maintainable and that the petitioner being a temporary employee was not entitled to any protection and the termination was purely in accordance with the terms of the appointment and, therefore, the question of violation of any of the rules or principles of natural justice did not arise. 5. The petitioner continued with her suit and in the year 2006 moved an application for amendment of the suit in which an alternative prayer to incorporate the grant of Rs. 5 lakhs as damages for wrongful termination was also sought, but the same has been declined by the learned trial court vide the impugned order. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the law of amendment is liberal and that the amendment can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the whole complexion of the suit is sought to be changed and prayer for Rs. 5 lakhs as damages is clearly a claim which is barred by time and limitation as the cause of action accrued to the petitioner in the year 1998 when the termination took place and the amendment now sought in the year 2006 is after a lapse of 8 years. It was further contended that no reason has been shown by the petitioner as to why such an amendment could not be incorporated in the first instance. It was further contended that no reason has been shown by the petitioner as to why such an amendment could not be incorporated in the first instance. Reliance is placed on Shiv Gopal @ Shiv Gopal Shau v. Sita Ram Saraugi & Ors., 2007(2) RAJ 295 (SC). 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 9. There is indeed no doubt that the law of amendment has to be construed liberally but the court cannot be oblivious to the facts of the case when the suit itself was filed in the year 1998 when cause of action first accrued to the petitioner and the written statement was filed in the year 2002. Despite that the petitioner continued with the suit in the original form till the year 2006 when an application for amendment was moved. The law is never intended to grant any undue advantage to a person who is not vigilant about his rights. The plea which is now sought to be incorporated could have been taken at the time of filing of the suit or even after filing of the written statement in the year 2002. No plausible explanation has been given as to why such a plea could not be raised by the petitioner earlier. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the amendment which is sought to be incorporated at the belated stage cannot be permitted. There is, thus, no infirmity in the impugned order. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.