Dewan Bahadur C. Krishnamachariar vs P. Arunachala Nadar and Another

Jackson, J.—The petitioner seeks to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge allowing the plaintiff to amend his plaint. The learned

Subordinate Judge has not rendered the task of this Court any the easier by entirely omitting to give reasons for his order although the matter was

the subject of controversy in his Court. The plaintiff is suing the Secretary of State and certain purchasers of his property which was sold by the

Secretary of State for arrears of abkari revenue. The ground, which he originally took in para. 9 of his plaint is that owing to the political

circumstances of 1921 he was unable to perform his part of the contract and for those reasons no abkari rent was legally due. He now wishes by

the new amendment to plead that he never entered into a contract at all. I think, that this cannot be described otherwise than as a new cause of

action and it is useless to attempt merely to describe it as an amplification or another legal aspect of the plaintiff''s case. If it is a new cause of

action, a suit cannot be brought against the Secretary of State without due notice as provided by Section 80, Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, the

only alternative open to the plaintiff would appear to be either to withdraw this suit with leave to bring a fresh action if the lower Court is disposed

to grant such leave or possibly to found his case upon the present pleadings as unamended which the respondent has argued before me may be

possible and which is not a matter now before this Court. Accordingly, the order of the learned Subordinate Judge must be set aside and this

petition is allowed with costs throughout payable by the 1st respondent.