The State of West Bengal & Ors. vs PAM Developments Private Limited & Anr.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

9 January 2025

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 300 of 2025

Result

Dismissed

Bench

Bela M. Trivedi, Satish Chandra Sharma

Citation

[2025] 1 S.C.R. 772 : 2025 INSC 69

Acts & Sections

CPC Limitation Act, 1963

Issue for consideration

Whether an amendment to a plaint introducing a fresh cause of action can be allowed if it arises out of continuous transactions and does not alter the nature and character of the suit; whether the bar under Section 80 of the CPC applies to an amendment application in a pending suit.

Headnote

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VI Rule 17 – Amendment of plaint – When permissible – Fresh cause of action – Whether an amendment to a plaint introducing subsequent events can be allowed – Whether the amendment changes the nature and character of the suit – Suit filed challenging debarment orders – Subsequent debarment orders issued – Plaintiff sought amendment to include subsequent debarment orders as a continuous cause of action – High Court allowed the amendment – Supreme Court upheld the decision, holding that the amendments were necessary for complete adjudication of the dispute and did not alter the nature of the suit: Held: Debarment orders formed a continuous cause of action – Cause of action is continuous when the wrongful act is repeated over time, extending the limitation period – Termination of the agreement, the First Debarment Order, and the memo dated 8th March 2016 constituted the cause of action – The subsequent debarment orders were part of the same event, they did not require a fresh suit – The amendment was valid and necessary for the complete adjudication of the dispute and did not alter the nature of the suit. [Para 24]

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 80 – Notice requirement before filing suit against the government – Not applicable to an amendment application:

Held: Where the amendment does not introduce a new cause of action but only supplements the existing one, the requirement under Section 80 does not apply – Amendment permissible even without prior notice to the government. [Para 26] Limitation Act, 1963 – Computation of limitation – Continuous cause of action – When applicable – Respondent sought damages for debarment orders issued over time – High Court found cause of action to be continuous – Supreme Court upheld this view:

Held: Cause of action continued to evolve with successive debarment orders, extending the limitation period. [Para 23]

Judgment Satish Chandra Sharma, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The Appellants challenge order dated 08.01.2024 in G.A. No. 11 of 2022 in C.S. No. 102 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the Ld. Single Judge of the High Court at Calcutta allowed the application filed by the present Respondent/original Applicant seeking amendment of plaint and dispensed with the requirement of issuance of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter “CPC”] for incorporating the amendment and prayer by way of amendment in the original plaint. 3. At the outset, it is imperative to take note of

View Subscription Plans →