Prior Notice U/S 80 CPC Mandatory For Amendment Seeking Fresh Cause Of Action And Relief: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court in a recent judgement has held that an amendment to a plaint introducing a new cause of action and seeking new relief against the State is not maintainable without prior notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

Justice Subhash Chand, presiding over the case, observed, “This proposed amendment is in regard to the new cause of action and the new relief as well. Before seeking this amendment, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to give prior notice to the State under Section 80 of C.P.C. pleading the new cause of action in regard to the construction of Trauma Centre in the land in suit and also for the delivery of the possession of the land on which the Trauma Centre has been erected after having demolished the same.”

“In the Amendment Application itself it is nowhere mentioned by the plaintiff that he has given any notice to the State under Section 80 of C.P.C. in regard to the new cause of action for the new relief for delivery of possession of the land in question after demolition of the Trauma Centre. It was mandatory for the plaintiff to give the notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. to the State for this new prayer based on new cause of action prior to seeking amendment in the plaint,” Justice Chand added.

Therefore, the Court held that the very Amendment Application filed on behalf of the plaintiff was not maintainable on this sole ground for not giving prior notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

The above ruling came in a Civil Miscellaneous Petition (C.M.P.) directed on behalf of the plaintiff against the order passed in a Civil Appeal by the trial court whereby the petition under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 of CPC was rejected.

As per the factual matrix of the case, there was a dispute over 1.16 acres of land in Village Nawada, that the plaintiff claimed to have inherited through her late husband as a recorded tenant. the plaintiff had filed the original suit against the State seeking a declaration of title while alleging that the land was acquired without her knowledge for constructing a Trauma Centre. However, a prior notice under Section 80 CPC had been issued for the original claim, the plaintiff failed to seek consequential relief for the recovery of possession in the initial suit.

The trial court had dismissed the original suit on the ground that it was barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, which prohibits granting declaratory relief without seeking consequential relief when required.

The Court in its judgement noted that the plaintiff was aware of the construction of the Trauma Centre since 2012, as evidenced by her testimony and the report of the Pleader Commissioner. Despite this knowledge, the proposed amendment to include relief for demolition and recovery of possession was filed without issuing a fresh notice under Section 80 CPC.

“From the very perusal of the Judgment which is Annexure No.2 of this petition, it is found that P.W.1 Arti Gupta in her cross-examination has admitted that the building was constructed by the Sadar Hospital over the land in the year 2012. P.W.5 Bishnu Dayal Mahto has also stated that he had made the local inspection of the property in suit and found Trauma Centre existed on the suit property of area of 1.16 acres, Plot No. 149/255, Khata No.1 village Nawada,” the Court said.

The plaintiff's amendment application, which sought to introduce a prayer for demolition of the Trauma Centre and recovery of possession, was filed without addressing the procedural requirement of notice under Section 80 CPC. Justice Chand emphasized that such non-compliance rendered the amendment application untenable.

The Court held, “the rejection of the Amendment Application by the learned court-below is proper though based on different finding. In view of the finding given by this Court hereinabove the rejection of the Amendment Application by passing the impugned order requires to be affirmed.”

The court therefore dismissed the C.M.P. while affirming the impugned order passed by the court-below.

Case Title: Deepak Kumar v. State Of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 187

Click Here To Read Order