Supreme Court: Subsequent events can be brought on record by amendment where they are linked to the original controversy and form part of a continuous cause of action

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. {Para 10}

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.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 300 of 2025 

Decided On: 09.01.2025

The State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs. Pam Developments Private Limited and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Bela M. Trivedi and S.C. Sharma, JJ.

Author: S.C. Sharma, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 69,MANU/SC/0057/2025.

Print Page

Whether wife is debarred from claiming maintenance under Domestic violence Act after three years?

The second prayer in the present petition relates to the quashing of CC No. 7601 of 2017 under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (in short ‘PWDV Act’).

10. As perusal of the prayers in the complaint under Section 12 of the PWDV Act relate primarily to grant of maintenance to respondent No. 2 and the minor child. Non providing of maintenance is a continuous cause of action and even if for three years the respondent No. 2 did not claim the maintenance for herself or for the child, the same would not debar her from seeking maintenance under Section 12 of the PWDV Act and the complaint thereon cannot be dismissed being barred by limitation.

In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(Before Mukta Gupta, J.)

Anthony Jose v.  State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

W.P(CRL) 2325/2017 and Crl. M.A No. 13146/2017 (stay)

Decided on December 5, 2018

Citation: 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12956

Print Page

Whether the second suit filed by the landlord on the same ground of eviction is barred by Res judicata?

Thus, the principle of res judicata cannot be attracted to
the case which was not decided on merits earlier. Approach of
the competent Court must be to decide the case on merits than
considering sheer technicality that the previous eviction case
was dismissed long back on account of default of appearance
by the landlord/Trust. To my mind, eviction of the defaulting
tenant or his representative who refuses to vacate do furnish
continuing periodical cause of action for the landlord to evict
the tenant refusing to vacate the tenement i.e. subject matter
of tenancy.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.545 OF 2014

Ashok Bhaurao Sardar V The State of Maharashtra,

Dated : 17.7.2014.

CORAM : A.P.BHANGALE, J.
Citation;2014(5) ALLMR 808

Print Page