2025 INSC 69

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11392 of 2024]

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

& ORS. …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

PAM DEVELOPMENTS PRIVATE

LIMITED & ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)

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
Signature Not Verified seeking amendment of plaint and dispensed with the requirement
Digitally signed by
ARJUN BISHT
Date: 2025.01.10
18:21:52 IST
Reason:
of issuance of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil

SLP (C) No. 11392 of 2024 Page 1 of 13

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

SLP (C) No. 11392 of 2024 Page 2 of 13

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 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

1
WP(C) No. 1043 of 2015

SLP (C) No. 11392 of 2024 Page 3 of 13

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.”
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

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.

SLP (C) No. 11392 of 2024 Page 4 of 13

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

SLP (C) No. 11392 of 2024 Page 5 of 13

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 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

SLP (C) No. 11392 of 2024 Page 6 of 13

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

5
(2001) 1 SCC 555

SLP (C) No. 11392 of 2024 Page 7 of 13

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.

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

SLP (C) No. 11392 of 2024 Page 8 of 13

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.”

SLP (C) No. 11392 of 2024 Page 9 of 13

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

SLP (C) No. 11392 of 2024 Page 10 of 13

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.
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

SLP (C) No. 11392 of 2024 Page 11 of 13

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.

SLP (C) No. 11392 of 2024 Page 12 of 13

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.

……………………………………J.
[BELA M. TRIVEDI]

……………………………………J.
[SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA]

NEW DELHI
JANUARY 09, 2025

SLP (C) No. 11392 of 2024 Page 13 of 13