JAHARLAL PAGALIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for amendment of the plaint. The amendment sought for is proposed paragraph 12(a) namely, that due notice under Section 80 was duly served on the defendant over two months prior to the institution of the suit. The suit was instituted on 26-4-1958. The summons is dated 3-5-1958. Two points were urged against the proposed amendment. First, that the application is a belated one, second, that the application introduces a new cause of action.

(2.) I shall first deal with the question whe ther the amendment sought for is one which intro duces a new cause of action. In other words, the question is whether notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a part of the plaintiffs cause of action. If it is a part of the plaintiffs cause of action the defendant contends that the application should be refused because first, the cause of action is barred by limitation and second ly, leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is, necessary therefor and the same cannot be granted at this stage to enable the plaintiff to add a fresh cause of action.

(3.) The phrase cause of action has not been defined in any statute but the meaning of it has been judicially considered. In Mt. Chand Koer v. Partab Singh, 15 Ind App 156 (PC), Lord Watson observed: