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

Citation: [2025] 1 S.C.R. 772 · Decided: 09-01-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BELA M. TRIVEDI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[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 st

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.