THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.versusPAM DEVELOPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.

                   [2025] 1 S.C.R. 772 : 2025 INSC 69

                  The State of West Bengal & Ors.
                                 v.
              PAM Developments Private Limited & Anr.
                       (Civil Appeal No. 300 of 2025)
                              09 January 2025
           [Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma,* JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Whether an amendment to a plaint introducing a fresh cause of
       action can be allowed if it arises out of continuous transactions
       and does not alter the nature and character of the suit; whether
       the bar under Section 80 of the CPC applies to an amendment
       application in a pending suit.

                                 Headnotes†
       Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VI Rule 17 – Amendment of
       plaint – When permissible – Fresh cause of action – Whether
       an amendment to a plaint introducing subsequent events can
       be allowed – Whether the amendment changes the nature
       and character of the suit – Suit filed challenging debarment
       orders – Subsequent debarment orders issued – Plaintiff
       sought amendment to include subsequent debarment orders
       as a continuous cause of action – High Court allowed the
       amendment – Supreme Court upheld the decision, holding that
       the amendments were necessary for complete adjudication of
       the dispute and did not alter the nature of the suit:
       Held: Debarment orders formed a continuous cause of action –
       Cause of action is continuous when the wrongful act is repeated
       over time, extending the limitation period – Termination of the
       agreement, the First Debarment Order, and the memo dated 8th
       March 2016 constituted the cause of action – The subsequent
       debarment orders were part of the same event, they did not require
       a fresh suit – The amendment was valid and necessary for the
       complete adjudication of the dispute and did not alter the nature
       of the suit. [Para 24]


* Author
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                            773

                  The State of West Bengal & Ors. v.
               PAM Developments Private Limited & Anr.

     Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 80 – Notice requirement
     before filing suit against the government – Not applicable to
     an amendment application:
     Held: Where the amendment does not introduce a new cause
     of action but only supplements the existing one, the requirement
     under Section 80 does not apply – Amendment permissible even
     without prior notice to the government. [Para 26]

     Limitation Act, 1963 – Computation of limitation – Continuous
     cause of action – When applicable – Respondent sought
     damages for debarment orders issued over time – High Court
     found cause of action to be continuous – Supreme Court
     upheld this view:
     Held: Cause of action continued to evolve with successive
     debarment orders, extending the limitation period. [Para 23]

                              Case Law Cited
     Bishandayal & Sons v. State of Orissa & Ors. (2001) 1 SCC 555 –
     relied upon.

                                List of Acts
     Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Limitation Act, 1963.

                             List of Keywords
     Amendment of plaint; Fresh cause of action; Continuous cause of
     action; Debarment; Limitation; Maintainability; Notice under Section
     80 CPC; Suit against Government.

                            Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 300 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 08.01.2024 of the High Court
     at Calcutta in GA No. 11 of 2022

                         Appearances for Parties
     Ashok Kumar Panda, Sr. Adv., Chanchal Kumar Ganguli,
     Advs. for the Appellants.
     Sarad Kumar Singhania, Saurav Agarwal, Advs. for the Respondents.
774                                                          [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


                    Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                   Judgment

       Satish Chandra Sharma, J.

1.     Leave granted.
2.     The Appellants challenge order dated 08.01.2024 in G.A. No. 11 of
       2022 in C.S. No. 102 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the Ld. Single
       Judge of the High Court at Calcutta allowed the application filed by
       the present Respondent/original Applicant seeking amendment of
       plaint and dispensed with the requirement of issuance of notice under
       Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter “CPC”]
       for incorporating the amendment and prayer by way of amendment
       in the original plaint.
3.     At the outset, it is imperative to take note of the relevant background
       facts and the chequered litigation history between the parties that
       are germane to the present dispute.

       BACKGROUND
4.     Appellant No. 4 / Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department
       [hereinafter “PWD”], Kolkata floated a tender on 04.12.2013 for the
       strengthening of the Howrah-Amta Road from 7.90 Km to 11.80
       Km [hereinafter “the Project”]. The Respondent emerged as the
       successful applicant and accordingly, an agreement was entered
       into by Appellant No. 4 and the Respondent on 23.04.2014, wherein
       the stipulated date for completion was 19.08.2014. The work was
       not completed by the stipulated date, and accordingly the Appellant
       No. 4 extended the timeline for the project while imposing a penalty
       rate. Ultimately, on 14.05.2015 Respondent’s security deposit came
       to be forfeited in light of non-completion of work.
5.     Vide order dated 07.07.2015, Appellant No. 4 debarred the Respondent
       from participating in any tender floated by it for the next two years
       [hereinafter “the First Debarment Order”]. The First Debarment Order
       was set aside by the High Court at Calcutta1 on the consideration
       that the Respondent was not put on notice. Consequently, Appellant
       No. 4 issued a show-cause notice dated 18.09.2015 for debarment


1    WP(C) No. 1043 of 2015
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                         775

                       The State of West Bengal & Ors. v.
                    PAM Developments Private Limited & Anr.

      to the Respondent and issued a memo dated 08.03.2016, requesting
      the latter to appear before the Debarment Committee.
6.    Aggrieved by memo dated 08.03.2016, Respondent preferred a civil
      suit, being C.S. No. 102 of 2016 [hereinafter “Civil Suit”], along with
      an application for an injunction, being G.A. No. 1339/2016, before the
      High Court at Calcutta. In the Civil Suit, the Respondent challenged
      the authority of the Appellants in issuing the memo requesting
      appearance in the debarment proceedings on the ground that the
      penalty for debarment is outside the scope of the contract in question
      and dehors the same. The Respondent also relied on the penalty
      amount imposed by the Appellants for the same cause of action to
      buttress its position. Further, and more critically, the Respondent
      claims that it has suffered a loss of around Rs. 2,21,61,296/- on
      account of the First Order of Debarment, which was wrongfully
      imposed. The Respondent has made several other claims which
      are not important to go into in this appeal.
7.    The High Court at Calcutta disposed of G.A. No. 1339/2016 while
      granting liberty to the Respondent to contest all grounds, including
      that of jurisdiction and composition before the Debarment Committee
      itself. Thereafter, for the next two years the Committee issued orders
      dated 01.12.2016, 06.03.2017, 22.05.2017, and finally on 31.10.2017
      [hereinafter “Underlying Debarment Order”], debarring the
      Respondent from participating in any tender floated by it for the next
      two years. Orders dated 01.12.2016, 06.03.2017, and 22.05.2017,
      were respectively set aside by the High Court at Calcutta vide orders
      dated 06.02.20172, 22.03.20173, and 02.08.20174 on the ground of
      procedural lapses on the part of the Appellants in conducting the
      Debarment proceedings. Finally, against the Underlying Debarment
      Order, the Respondent preferred G.A. No. 173 of 2018 in C.S. No.
      102 of 2016 which came to be rejected vide order dated 24.01.2020,
      wherein the High Court at Calcutta observed - “It is not for the Court
      at this stage to speculate on the effect of that debarment already
      suffered by the plaintiffs on a tender process which is yet to happen.
      The issue as to whether or not the petitioner was correctly debarred
      as sought to be done in the present case, is an issue which need
      not to be decided in this application. Such issue is kept open.”


2    GA No. 84 of 2017 in CS No. 102 of 2016.
3    GA No. 877 of 2017 in CS No. 102 of 2016.
4    GA No. 2416 of 2017 in CS No. 102 of 2016.
776                                                               [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


8.     At the close of this litigation history, the Respondent filed an application,
       being G.A. No. 7 of 2019 in C.S. No. 102 of 2016 seeking to amend
       the plaint in order to bring on record subsequent facts necessary for
       effective adjudication. While this application was dismissed as “not
       pressed”, the Respondent filed another application for amendment
       of the plaint, being G.A. No. 11 of 2022 in C.S. No. 102 of 2016
       [hereinafter “the Underlying Application”]. The Respondent prayed
       to amend the plaint and the prayer on the ground that several facts
       had taken place after the Civil Suit was filed resulting in a continuous
       cause of action, whereby it is pertinent to bring those facts on record
       in order to adjudicate upon the dispute. The Appellants strongly
       contested the Underlying Application by stating that it is identical
       to G.A. No. 7 of 2019, i.e. the first amendment application, which
       was dismissed.
9.     Vide order dated 08.01.2024 [hereinafter the “Impugned Order”],
       the High Court categorically held that the amendment sought for by
       the Respondent amounts to a continuous cause of action and will
       not change the nature and character of the Civil Suit. In fact, the
       memo dated 08.03.2016 forms the subject matter of the Civil Suit
       between the parties, and is a continuation to the show-cause notice
       dated 18.09.2015. Further, it noted that the issue of whether the
       Respondent has been correctly debarred or not by the Appellants
       has been kept open vide order dated 24.01.2020. Consequently,
       the impugned order concludes that the entire circumstances are in
       continuation to the memo dated 08.03.2016.

       SUBMISSIONS BY THE PARTIES
10. Challenging the Impugned Order, the Appellants submit that
    subsequent events of debarment give rise to a fresh cause of action
    for which a fresh suit is to be filed, regardless of the parties being
    the same. Accordingly, it is their case that the Underlying Debarment
    Order dated 31.10.2017 gave rise to a fresh cause of action for which
    the Respondent did not take any steps for initiating action, resulting
    in now being time-barred. Therefore, the proposed amendment
    changes the character and the nature of the suit.
11. The Appellants’ next submission is that the first application for
    amendment was dismissed as not pressed while no liberty was
    given to file afresh. Accordingly, as per Order XXIII Rule 1 and 4 of
    the CPC, the Respondent has abandoned its claim which formed a
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                      777

                     The State of West Bengal & Ors. v.
                  PAM Developments Private Limited & Anr.

     part of the first application and it cannot be permitted to amend its
     claim on the same grounds.
12. The Appellants also urge this Court to consider that the Respondent
    has not issued a notice to the Appellants under Section 80 of the
    CPC as a fresh cause of action has been introduced. In order to
    buttress the same, the Appellants rely upon Bishandayal & Sons v.
    State of Orissa & Ors.5.
13. The counsel for the Appellants has further relied upon the Limitation
    Act, 1963 [hereinafter “the Limitation Act”] to submit that the
    prescribed limitation period of three years started running from
    31.10.2017, i.e. the date of the Underlying Debarment Order,
    and expired on 13.10.2022 considering the COVID-19 exclusion.
    Whereas, the amendment was filed on 05.12.2022, which is beyond
    the limitation period.
14. Per Contra, the Respondent has submitted that it has severely
    suffered on account of erroneous blacklisting orders for the period of
    two years starting on 07.07.2015 up until 22.05.2017. Thereby, the
    Respondent has not been able to participate in any tender during that
    period, facing financial, business, and reputational losses. Further,
    the Respondent argues that it has the legal right to amend the plaint
    as the cause of action is continuous on account of the fact that G.A.
    No. 173 of 2018 was disposed of by order dated 24.01.2020, while
    keeping the issue open between the parties.
15. The counsel for Respondent argued that there are three vital dates to
    consider whether the amendment application is barred by the laws of
    res judicata. The first amendment application was filed in July, 2019
    and was dismissed as withdrawn on 13.01.2021. Subsequent facts
    that arose pursuant to the order dated 24.01.2020 were incorporated
    in the Underlying Application. Pertinently, all subsequent events
    transpired in the Civil Suit itself by way of several interlocutory
    applications. In fact, all other debarment orders were set aside, and
    only the issue of the legality of the Underlying Debarment Order was
    kept open. Finally, the Respondent urges that all the subsequent
    facts sought to be brought on record is a replica of all the facts in
    the several applications.


5   (2001) 1 SCC 555
778                                                       [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


       DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS
16. We have heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused
    the record in detail. While expressing no opinion on the merits of the
    Civil Suit itself, we have no hesitation in holding that the Impugned
    Order is valid and the Underlying Application is to be allowed.
17. The short points that fall to our consideration are, first, whether the
    Underlying Application is legally sustainable; and second, whether
    the Respondent ought to serve notice upon the Appellants under
    Section 80 of the CPC. We will deal with each issue in turn.
18. It is evident from the record that all debarment orders have arisen
    from the memo for appearance dated 08.03.2016, which is the
    genesis of the Debarment Committee. Consequently, the High
    Court has permitted the Committee to conduct a legal hearing, while
    concomitantly allowing the Civil Suit, being C.S. No. 102 of 2016,
    to be heard. Accordingly, the Debarment Committee issued several
    orders debarring the Respondent from participating in any tender
    floated by it for the next two years. As the process was permitted to
    take place side-by-side with the Civil Suit, the Respondent challenged
    the debarment orders by preferring interlocutory applications in the
    same Civil Suit.
19. The Underlying Debarment Order was issued on 31.10.2017, and
    challenged in G.A. No. 173/2018 in the Civil Suit. Vide order dated
    24.01.2020, the High Court dismissed G.A. No. 173/2018 while
    keeping the issue of validity open. Specifically, the High Court held:
          “The order of debarment is subsequent to the filing of the
          suit. The order of debarment under challenge is pursuant
          to an order passed by the High Court in the suit.
          …The fact that the petitioner is no longer in the list of
          debarred candidates is not disputed.
          …It is not for the Court at this stage to speculate on the
          effect of the debarment already suffered by the petitioner
          on a tender process which is yet to happen. The issue as
          to whether or not the petitioner was correctly debarred as
          sought to be done in the present case is an issue which
          need not be decided in this application. Such issue is
          kept open.”
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                        779

                  The State of West Bengal & Ors. v.
               PAM Developments Private Limited & Anr.

20. What falls from the aforementioned extraction is that two years
    had already passed since the Underlying Debarment Order when
    the High Court passed the order dated 24.01.2020. Therefore, it
    was inconsequential as the Respondent was no longer blacklisted.
    However, the High Court kept the larger issue, i.e. what is the effect
    and legality of the Underlying Debarment Order, open.
21. The noteworthy takeaway from the above is that the debarment
    orders form a continuous cause of action as they are a continuation
    of the memo dated 08.03.2016, which came to be impugned in the
    Civil Suit. 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 08.03.2016.
22. We have carefully perused the Underlying Application preferred
    by the Respondent before the High Court. The facts sought to be
    brought on record relate to the subsequent debarment orders and
    their respective challenges. Adjudication in the Civil Suit will be
    incomplete and ineffective if the consequent facts are not brought on
    record. This is due to the fact that the subsequent debarment orders
    and related events form a continuous chain finding its genesis in the
    memo dated 08.03.2016. For instance, the Respondent has made
    a claim for an amount to be paid to it by penalising the Appellants
    for wrongfully issuing the First Debarment Order. The subsequent
    debarment orders all arise as a part of the same event and hence,
    its effect on the claim of the Respondent, if any, must be adjudicated
    together. Accordingly, we hold that the subsequent events form a
    continuous cause of action for which a fresh suit is not to be filed,
    as it does not change the nature and character of the Civil Suit.
23. The learned counsel for the Appellants has strongly urged that
    even considering the COVID-19 relaxation, the limitation period for
    challenging the Underlying Debarment Order expires on 14.10.2022.
    We find ourselves unable to agree with the said submission. The
    issue regarding the legality of the Underlying Debarment Order
    was kept open vide order dated 24.01.2020; hence forming the last
    event in the continuous cause of action. Accordingly, the Underlying
    Application is well within the limitation period taking into account the
    continuous cause of action.
780                                                                   [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                                Supreme Court Reports


24. The learned counsel for the Appellants has further urged that the
    dismissal of the first amendment application as withdrawn vide
    order dated 13.01.2021 precludes the Respondent from filing the
    Underlying Application as under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC, the
    same amounts to an abandonment of claim. The core of Section 12
    of the CPC read with Order XXIII Rule 1 is that no suit lies on the
    same cause of action if the plaintiff has abandoned their claim. In the
    present case, the same is not attracted as the circumstances give
    rise to a continuous cause of action resulting in a situation where
    both the amendment applications were filed at different points of
    time and the former was not adjudicated on merits.
25. Lastly, we consider the submission made by the Appellants regarding
    the non-issuance of a notice as per Section 80 of the CPC prior to
    the filing of the Underlying Application. It is apposite to reproduce
    the relevant portion of Section 80 of the CPC as relied on by the
    Appellants:
                “80. Notice.— Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2),
                no suits shall be instituted against the Government (including
                the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir)] 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 next after notice in writing
                has been delivered to, or left at the office of.”
26. We have already observed that the amendment sought amounts to
    a continuous cause of action and maintains the nature and character
    of the suit and to that extent, Section 80 of the CPC is irrelevant to
    the case at hand.
27. In view of the above, no good reasons are seen to interfere with
    the impugned order. The appeal stands dismissed without any order
    on costs.

       Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.



       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Aishani Narain, Hony. Associate Editor
                                   (Verified by: Abhinav Mukerji, Sr. Adv.)