Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News?

A bench of Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held that when an application seeks amendment of plaint which constitutes a continuous cause of action no notice to the government is required under Section 80 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908.                     

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of State of West Bengal v. Pam Developments Private Limited and Anr (2024). 

What was the Background of State of West Bengal v. Pam Developments Private Limited and Anr. Case?  

• On 4^th December 2013, the Superintending Engineer, PWD, Kolkata, floated a tender for strengthening the Howrah-Amta Road, with the project to be completed by 19^th August 2014. 
• The Respondent was awarded the contract, but the work was not completed on time. The timeline was extended with a penalty, and on 14^th May 2015, the Respondent's security deposit was forfeited. 
• On 7^th July 2015, the Respondent was debarred from participating in PWD tenders for two years (First Debarment Order), but the Calcutta High Court set it aside due to lack of notice to the Respondent. 
• A show-cause notice for debarment was issued on 18^th September 2015, followed by a memo on 8^th March 2016 requesting the Respondent to appear before the Debarment Committee. 
• The Respondent challenged the memo via Civil Suit No. 102 of 2016 and sought an injunction, claiming debarment was beyond the contract's scope and caused significant financial loss. 
• The High Court allowed the Respondent to contest all issues, including jurisdiction, before the Debarment Committee, which issued multiple orders culminating in a two-year debarment order on 31^st October 2017. 
• The earlier debarment orders were set aside by the High Court for procedural lapses on 6^th February 2017, 22^nd March 2017, and 2^nd August 2017. 
• The Respondent challenged the 31^st October 2017 debarment order but was rejected on 24^th January 2020, with the Court leaving the validity of the debarment open. 
• The Respondent sought to amend the plaint twice, first in 2019 (application dismissed as “not pressed”) and again in 2022, citing continuous cause of action and new developments. 
• The High Court allowed the 2022 amendment on 8^th January 2024, noting the facts constituted a continuous cause of action and did not change the suit's nature. 
• The above order of the High Court which allowed the application for condonation of delay and dispensed with the requirement of issuance of notice under Section 80 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) was challenged before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The Court observed that there are two issues to be determined here: 
  • Whether the underlying application for amendment is legally sustainable? 
  • Whether the Respondent ought to serve notice upon the Appellants under Section 80 of CPC? 
• With Regards to Issue (i): 
  • The Court observed that the debarment orders form a continuous cause of action. 
  • 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 08th March 2016. 
  • It was observed that the subsequent debarment orders are all part of the same event and hence the subsequent events form a continuous cause of action for which a fresh suit is not filed as it does not change the nature and character of the civil suit. 
  • The Court thus held that that the circumstances give rise to a continuous cause of action resulting in situation where both the amendment applications were filed at different points of times and the former was not adjudicated on merits. 
• With Respect to Issue (ii): 
  • It was the case that the notice under Section 80 of CPC should have been filed before filing the application for amendment. 
  • The Court held that the amendment amounts to a continuous cause of action and maintains the nature and character of suit and to that extent the notice under Section 80 of CPC is irrelevant. 

What is Section 80 of CPC?

• Section 80 of CPC refers to the requirement of giving notice in case suit is filed against the Government. 
• Section 80 (1) of CPC provides that Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), no suits shall be instituted against the Government or against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity, until the expiration of two months after notice in writing has been delivered to, or left at the office of— 
  • in the case of a suit against the Central Government, except where it relates to a railways, a Secretary to that Government; 
  • in the case of a suit against the Central Government where it relates to railway, the General Manager of that railway; 
  • in the case of a suit against any other State Government, a Secretary to that Government or the Collector of the district and, in the case of a public officer, delivered to him or left at his office 
• As per Section 80 (1) of CPC the notice shall state the following: 
  • Cause of Action 
  • the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff 
  • the relief which he claims 
  • the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left. 
• Section 80(2) of CPC, 1908 provides exception to the sub-section (1), It exempt the court to entertain a suit dealing with urgent or immediate relief against the government on reasonable opportunity of show cause that the matter needs immediate attention. 
  • If on hearing the court is unsatisfied with the ground that urgent or immediate relief need be granted in the suit, it should return the plaint for the later presentation after satisfying the compliance needed in sub-section (1). 
• Section 80(3) of CPC, 1908 deals with the basic requirement of notice. If those requirements are satisfied, then the suit cannot be set aside merely on the ground of any error or defect in the notice.  
  • Those basic requirements of notice are:  
    • The name, description, and the residence of the plaintiff in such vivid way that it clearly allows to identify the person serving the notice. 
    • Such notice had been delivered or left at the office of the appropriate authority specified in subsection (1) 
    • The cause of action and the relief claimed by the plaintiff had been substantially indicated. 

What is the Object Behind Serving Notice under Section 80 of CPC? 

• The underlying object behind serving notice under Section 80 of CPC is as follows: 
  • In case of reasonable and just reason for filling suit, a prior notice will provide an opportunity to the government or public officer to correct or accept the demand put forward by the plaintiff. It leads to speedy settlement of the grievances. 
  • In case of reasonable complaint government or public officer will get enough time of two months to settle it down or to negotiate on the issue. Which might take years if it will decide in court. 
  • By giving a chance to negotiate and settle down the dispute this section is inserted for saving the money and time of plaintiff. It will help in avoiding money wastage in long process of litigation. 

What are the Important Case Laws on Notice under Section 80 of CPC? 

• BR Sinha v. State of MP (1969) 
  • Provisions u/s. 80 CPC are mandatory and failure to serve two months prior notice will entail the dismissal of the suit. 
• Islamia Junior High School v. State of UP (1986) 
  • Court is competent to consider whether or not there is in existence the urgency or likelihood of immediate relief being granted to the plaintiff. 
  • If the court is of the opinion that there is no such urgency existing or immediate relief cannot be granted, the court may refuse leave u/s. 80(2) of the CPC. 
• Bishan Dayal v. State of Orissa (2001) 
  • The Court held that if by amendment of plaint a new cause of action is brought, then a fresh notice u/s. 80 CPC is mandatory.