S. 80 CPC | Amendments To Plaint Linked To Main Cause Of Action Constitutes Continuous Of Action, No Notice Required To Government : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that when an application seeking an amendment to plaint is filed due to subsequent developments intrinsically linked to the main cause of action, it constitutes a continuous cause of action, and no notice to the government is required under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

The primary issue for consideration before the Court was whether a notice under Section 80 CPC is required to be served upon the government before seeking an amendment to plaint based on the subsequent developments or cause of action intrinsically tied to the main cause of action.

Section 80 CPC requires the party filing a suit against a government to give a two-month prior notice to the government or its officers before instituting the Suit. The Court observed that without altering the nature of the suit if an amendment application merely incorporated subsequent facts into an ongoing case, a notice under Section 80 would be deemed irrelevant.

The bench comprising Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice SC Sharma was hearing the State of West Bengal's appeal against the Calcutta High Court's order allowing the amendment application of the Respondent and dispensed with the requirement of issuance of notice under Section 80 of CPC.

The dispute arose from the debarment of the Respondent-Pam Developments Pvt. Ltd. by the Public Works Department (PWD), West Bengal, for failure to complete a road construction project. The Respondent challenged the legality of successive debarment orders and sought amendment of the plaint to incorporate subsequent facts, including claims of financial losses caused by the debarment.

The Appellant contended that a fresh cause of action arose from the subsequent debarment orders, therefore a notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. was required to be served upon them before filing an amendment application.

Per contra, the Respondent contended that the notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. was not required to be served upon the Appellant because the amendment application filed in the original suit was due to the successive debarment orders passed by the Appellant forming part of the initial debarment order which led to the institution of the suit.

Finding force in the Respondent's contention, the judgment authored by Justice SC Sharma justified the High Court's decision allowing the Respondent's amendment application and dispensing with the requirement of formal notice under Section 80 to the Appellant.

“The noteworthy takeaway from the above is that the debarment orders form a continuous cause of action as they are a continuation of the memo dated 08.03.2016, which came to be impugned in the Civil Suit. A cause of action is continuing when the act alleged to be wrongful is repeating over a period of time, and consequently extending the limitation period. Cause of action is a bundle of facts giving rise to a legal right; where in the present case the cause of action is the termination of the agreement, the First Debarment Order, and the memo dated 08.03.2016.”, the Court observed.

A cause of action comprises a bundle of facts giving rise to a legal right. Since the Respondent's claims for damages and challenges to subsequent debarment orders were tied to the initial debarment order, they did not constitute a new cause of action, the Court observed.

“The subsequent debarment orders all arise as a part of the same event and hence, its effect on the claim of the Respondent, if any, must be adjudicated together. Accordingly, we hold that the subsequent events form a continuous cause of action for which a fresh suit is not to be filed, as it does not change the nature and character of the Civil Suit.”, the Court said.

Accordingly, the Appeal was dismissed.

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, Sr. Adv. Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR Mr. Saurav Agarwal, Adv.

Case Title: THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. VERSUS PAM DEVELOPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 52

Click here to read/download the judgment