PROVINCE OF MADRAS, REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR OF MADRAS Vs. RBPODDAR FIRM THROUGH ITS MANAGING 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 Subordinate Judge found that even though the proposed amendment would introduce an additional cause of action, as it would, if decided in favour of the plaintiff, terminate to the litigation, such a prayer should be allowed in order to avoid multiplicity of suits. The learned Judge relied upon the decision in Ezra V/s. Secretary of State (1902) I.L.R. 30 Cal. 36 for the proposition that where an amendment of plaint is. necessitated by the discovery of facts previously unknown to the plaintiff and the relief asked for in the plaint is not altered by the amendment, a further notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code was not necessary and since the lower Court is entitled to take notice of subsequent events, it was bound to allow the amendment