THE PROVINCE OF MADRAS, REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR OF MADRAS Vs. R.B. PODDAR FIRM THROUGH ITSMANAGING PARTNER, MOTILAL FOMRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN application to amend the plaint in O.S. No. 67 of 1945 on the file of the Sub -Court of Madura by the addition of a paragraph 19 -A, to the original plaint has been allowed by the learned Subordinate Judge and the Provincial Government represented by the Collector of Madura seeks to revise that order on - the ground that as the amendment introduces a new cause of action, it cannot be allowed without the imperative pre -requisite of a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) THE suit as originally framed was for a declaration that the acquisition by the Government, of certain ground and premises belonging to the plaintiff and set forth in the schedule to the plaint was illegal, mala fide, unreasonable, ultra vires and without jurisdiction and for granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendant (Provincial Government) from proceeding with the said acquisition or from taking possession of the said property. Pending the suit, an application was made to amend the plaint by the addition of the new paragraph to the effect that since the Madura Ramnad Central Co -operative Bank, Ltd., for the use of which the original acquisition had been intended had ceased to. exist as an entity on account of its dissolution there was no further necessity for the acquisition at all and therefore the defendant, should not take any further step in relation to this acquisition.

(3.) THE learned Government Pleader contends that since the proposed amendment introduces a new cause of action, the Court has no jurisdiction to allow the amendment because a previous notice as contemplated by Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code stating the cause of action has not been given by the plaintiff. The question, therefore, is whether the learned Judge acted with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction in allowing the amendment. The suit as originally framed was based upon the action of the Government which according to the plaintiff was mala fide, illegal and ultra vires. The plaintiff now says that during the course of the suit, it has come to his knowledge that the purpose for which the acquisition was intended to be made has ceased to exist and therefore there is no necessity at all for such. acquisition. The subsequent facts certainly introduce a new cause of action which is inconsistent with the original one. Thus, I have no hesitation in holding that a fresh cause of action is introduced into the suit by means of this amendment....