A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The State of West Bengal & Ors. v. PAM Developments Private Limited & Anr., [2025] 1 S.C.R. 772 : 2025 INSC 69 concerns the scope of amendment of a plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC where subsequent events (additional debarment orders) post-date the filing of the suit. The central question was whether those subsequent debarment orders gave rise to a fresh cause of action or formed part of a continuous cause of action emanating from the original memo dated 08.03.2016 (and related show-cause notice). The High Court allowed the amendment and dispensed with service of notice under Section 80 CPC; the State challenged that order before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court, holding that:
(i) the subsequent debarment orders arose from the same genesis and therefore constituted a continuous cause of action;

(ii) allowing the amendment did not change the nature or character of the suit and was necessary for complete adjudication;

(iii) where an amendment merely supplements an existing cause of action, the prior notice requirement under Section 80 CPC does not get attracted.

The Court applied principles of continuity of cause of action and limitation, rejected the contention that dismissal (as withdrawn) of an earlier amendment application amounted to abandonment under Order XXIII R.1 CPC, and held that the limitation clock was kept alive by interlocutory proceedings and the High Court’s order keeping legality of debarment open. The judgment emphasizes pragmatic adjudication and the duty to allow amendments essential for effective and complete resolution of disputes.

Keywords: Amendment of plaint; Continuous cause of action; Fresh cause of action; Section 80 CPC; Order VI R.17 CPC; Limitation; Debarment; Order XXIII R.1 CPC.

B) CASE DETAILS 

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The dispute arises from a public-works contract for strengthening a road where PAM Developments was the successful contractor and failed to complete work by the stipulated date, resulting in penalties and forfeiture of security. A first debarment order was issued on 07.07.2015, later set aside by the High Court for want of notice. Against subsequent administrative steps a show-cause dated 18.09.2015 and a memo dated 08.03.2016 calling the Respondent before the Debarment Committee the Respondent filed C.S. No. 102 of 2016 challenging the authority to debar and claiming consequential losses.

The Debarment Committee, operating alongside the civil proceedings, issued additional debarment orders on 01.12.2016, 06.03.2017, 22.05.2017 and ultimately 31.10.2017 (the Underlying Debarment Order). Several of the interlocutory debarment orders were set aside by the High Court on procedural grounds; the suit continued and the High Court expressly left open the question of the legality and effect of the Underlying Debarment Order (order dated 24.01.2020). Thereafter, the Respondent sought to amend its plaint to bring subsequent debarment orders and events on record so as to ensure effective and complete adjudication. The High Court allowed the amendment and dispensed with Section 80 CPC notice; the State appealed. The Supreme Court’s judgment addresses two legal nodes: permissibility of amendment introducing events occurring after the suit’s institution (whether those events create a fresh cause of action), and whether Section 80 CPC notice is required for such an amendment when it concerns claims against the Government.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The Project tendered by the Superintending Engineer, PWD, Kolkata on 04.12.2013 led to an agreement with PAM Developments on 23.04.2014 with completion date 19.08.2014. Non-completion attracted an extension with penalty and eventual forfeiture of the security deposit on 14.05.2015. A debarment order on 07.07.2015 (two-year ban) was set aside by the High Court for lack of notice. The Appellants then issued a show-cause dated 18.09.2015 and thereafter a memo dated 08.03.2016 (genesis of the Debarment Committee proceedings).

The Respondent filed C.S. No. 102 of 2016 challenging the memo and asserting monetary loss (~Rs. 2,21,61,296) from wrongful debarment. While the suit proceeded, the Debarment Committee passed several debarment orders on 01.12.2016, 06.03.2017, 22.05.2017 (each later set aside for procedural lapses) and the Underlying Debarment Order on 31.10.2017. The Respondent repeatedly pursued interlocutory applications in the civil suit challenging those orders. An amendment attempt in 2019 was dismissed as not pressed (withdrawn) but a fresh amendment application in G.A. No. 11 of 2022 sought to record the subsequent orders and seek relief for wrongful debarment; the High Court allowed that amendment and dispensed with statutory notice under Section 80 CPC.

The Appellants contended that the subsequent debarment order of 31.10.2017 gave rise to a fresh cause of action and was time-barred when the amendment was filed (claimed expiry on 14.10.2022 with COVID-related exclusion), that prior withdrawal equated to abandonment under Order XXIII R.1 CPC, and that Section 80 CPC notice was required. The Respondent maintained that all events flowed from the 08.03.2016 memo, formed a continuous cause of action, that prior interlocutory rulings kept legality open, and that the amendment was necessary for full adjudication.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether an amendment to the plaint to introduce subsequent debarment orders occurring after institution of suit amounts to a fresh cause of action, or whether those events form a continuous cause of action traceable to the original memo dated 08.03.2016?

2. Whether allowing such an amendment would change the nature and character of the suit for purposes of Order VI R.17 CPC?

3. Whether the bar under Section 80 CPC (two months’ notice before suing the Government) applies to an amendment application in a pending suit which merely supplements an existing cause of action?

4. Whether dismissal of a prior amendment application as “not pressed” (withdrawn) precludes filing a later amendment (abandonment under Order XXIII R.1 CPC)?

5. How should limitation be computed where wrongful acts recur and interlocutory orders keep the principal issue open?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The subsequent debarment order dated 31.10.2017 is a separate wrongful act giving rise to a fresh cause of action; amendment cannot be used to litigate time-barred claims — a fresh suit ought to have been filed and since none was, the claim is barred by limitation.
ii. The first amendment application was dismissed as “not pressed” and therefore the Respondent abandoned that claim; under Order XXIII R.1 CPC the plaintiff cannot re-assert an abandoned claim.
iii. The Respondent failed to issue a mandatory Section 80 CPC notice prior to pressing claims arising from the later debarment; reliance on Bishandayal & Sons v. State of Orissa invoked the need for prior notice.
iv. The amendment sought changes the nature and character of the original suit and is impermissible under Order VI R.17 CPC.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The subsequent debarment orders are a direct continuation of the 08.03.2016 memo and the original show-cause; they form a single, continuous cause of action properly litigable in the pending suit.
ii. Allowing the amendment does not alter the nature or character of the suit but enables complete adjudication of all events arising from the same genesis.
iii. The initial amendment application being dismissed as “not pressed” did not result in adjudication on merits nor constitute abandonment; later amendment was legitimately filed in light of subsequent interlocutory developments.
iv. Section 80 CPC is irrelevant because no new cause of action is being introduced — the amendment only supplements the existing pleadings.

H) JUDGEMENT 

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s order allowing the amendment and dispensing with notice under Section 80 CPC. The Court framed two discrete issues —

(i) whether the amendment was legally sustainable and

(ii) whether Section 80 CPC notice was required. The Court analysed the litigation chronology and concluded that all debarment orders traced their genesis to the 08.03.2016 memo, which was the subject matter of C.S. No. 102 of 2016.

Importantly, the High Court had permitted the Debarment Committee to proceed with hearings while the civil suit remained live and had kept the central legality issue open in its order dated 24.01.2020. The Court relied on well-settled principles that a cause of action is continuous where the alleged wrongful acts repeat over time, thereby potentially extending limitation; it noted that the cause of action here comprised the termination of the agreement, the First Debarment Order, and the memo dated 08.03.2016.

The Court examined the proposed amendment and found that the facts sought to be incorporated related to subsequent debarment orders which were part of the same chain and were necessary for effective adjudication of compensation/impact claims. The Court held that such amendment did not change the character or nature of the suit; rather, it supplemented pleadings so that the entire sequence of wrongful acts could be examined together. On limitation, the Court rejected the Appellant’s calculation, observing that the High Court’s order keeping the issue open (and interlocutory proceedings) constituted the last event in the continuous cause of action; thus the amendment filed on 05.12.2022 was within limitation even after allowing for COVID-19 exclusions. Regarding Order XXIII R.1 CPC, the Court held that earlier dismissal as “not pressed” did not lead to abandonment where the application was not adjudicated on merits and subsequent material events transpired within the suit’s lifecycle.

On Section 80 CPC, the Court held that where an amendment merely supplements an existing cause of action and does not introduce a new cause of action, the requirement of giving prior notice to the Government is not attracted. The Court therefore affirmed the High Court’s pragmatic approach to permit amendment and dismissed the appeal without costs.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The operative ratio is twofold. First, an amendment under Order VI R.17 CPC is permissible to introduce subsequent events that are a continuation of the original cause of action; such amendment is necessary when omission would render adjudication incomplete. The Court reiterated that a continuous cause of action exists where the wrongful act recurs or where a sequence of acts arises from the same genesis; in such cases, the later events need not be litigated in a fresh suit. Second, Section 80 CPC does not bar an amendment in the pending suit where the amendment does not import a fresh cause of action but only supplements the pleadings; the statutory notice requirement is directed at suits instituted afresh against the Government and not to supplementation of pending proceedings that already involve the Government and the same subject matter. These principles combined lead to the legal conclusion that amendments which preserve the nature and character of the suit and are necessary for complete adjudication should be allowed.

b. OBITER DICTA 

The Court’s observations on continuity of cause of action and the effect of interlocutory orders constitute instructive obiter guidance: where a court keeping an issue open and permitting parallel adjudicatory processes effectively prolongs the operative timeline of the cause of action, plaintiffs may rely on that continuity for limitation purposes. The Court also remarked (by way of guidance) on the practical function of Order VI R.17 CPC courts should lean towards allowing amendments which further justice and effective adjudication rather than adopting technical barbs that obstruct determination on merits. While not strictly necessary for decision, these comments signal judicial preference for substantive justice over procedural formalism.

c. GUIDELINES

1. Amendment Principle: Courts should allow amendments under Order VI R.17 CPC where the impugned events form part of a continuous chain arising from the same genesis and where excluding such facts would prevent complete adjudication.

2. Continuous Cause of Action Test: Determine whether subsequent events repeat or flow from the same wrongful act/instrumentality (the “genesis test”); if yes, treat them as continuous for limitation and amendment purposes.

3. Section 80 CPC Application: Require Section 80 CPC notice for fresh suits against Government/public officers; do not insist on fresh notice where amendment in an existing suit supplements but does not alter the cause of action.

4. Effect of Interlocutory Orders: If the court has kept the question of legality open or permitted parallel remedies, those orders may operate to extend or toll the limitation timeline for related claims.

5. Abandonment vs. Withdrawal: Dismissal of an amendment application as “not pressed” or withdrawn without adjudication does not automatically amount to abandonment under Order XXIII R.1 CPC, particularly where new material events occur within the pending suit.

6. Practical Adjudication: Courts should prioritise adjudication on merits and consider whether refusal to amend would require multiplicity of litigation or create piecemeal outcomes.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment is a pragmatic adjudicatory pronouncement that balances procedural rules against the imperative of complete and effective dispute resolution. By treating successive debarment orders as a continuous cause of action, the Court avoided artificial segmentation of relief and the potential injustice of time-barred technicalities where the litigation context (interlocutory orders and parallel proceedings) kept the controversy alive. The ruling provides useful guidance for litigants and courts dealing with evolving administrative acts: pleadings should be allowed to adapt to post-institution events when they are integral to the same controversy.

The decision also narrows the mechanical application of Section 80 CPC by clarifying its inapplicability to mere amendments in a pending suit that do not create a new cause of action. For practitioners, the case underscores

(i) the importance of framing pleadings to capture potential continuation of wrongful acts;

(ii) recognising the tolling/extension effect of interlocutory orders; and

(iii) that procedural devices such as Order VI R.17 CPC are to be used to achieve comprehensive adjudication. The judgment thus harmonises procedural fairness with substantive redress, while cautioning that amendments cannot be a cloak for introducing genuinely new and time-barred claims.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. The State of West Bengal & Ors. v. PAM Developments Private Limited & Anr., [2025] 1 S.C.R. 772 : 2025 INSC 69 (Supreme Court of India).

2. Bishandayal & Sons v. State of Orissa & Ors., (2001) 1 SCC 555 (Supreme Court of India).

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VI Rule 17; Order XXIII Rule 1; Section 80.

2. Limitation Act, 1963 (provisions on computation of limitation and continuous cause of action).