(1.) Begusarai Municipality as the defendant in a title suit instituted by the plaintiff-opposite party in the court of the First Munsif at Begusarai is the petitioner, and the application is directed against the order of the learned Munsif dated the 9th June, 1971, allowing the prayer of the plaintiff for making certain amendment in the plaint.
(2.) In the suit as originally filed, the relief which the plaintiff sought was for a declaration to the effect that the suspension order passed on 27-2-1968, by the Chairman of the Municipality against the petitioner was illegal. The plaintiff had also prayed for an injunction to restrain the defendant from proceeding with the departmental enquiry contemplated to be taken against the plaintiff and from dismissing him from service. It so happened that the prayer made by the plaintiff for an interim order of injunction ultimately failed and thereupon a further event happened namely that an order of the plaintiff's dismissal from service was passed on the 15th July, 1968. Thereafter on the 29th March, 1971, the plaintiff applied for amendment of his plaint. The substance of the amendment sought for was that a further relief should be granted to the plaintiff to the effect that the dismissal order dated the 15th July, 1968, was also illegal, mala fide and without jurisdiction and that the plaintiff should be declared to be continuing in service even after the date of passing of the dismissal order and to be entitled to his salary on that basis. The amendment was opposed on behalf of the defendant, but by the impugned order the learned Munsif has allowed the plaint to be amended as prayed for.
(3.) The main contention of learned counsel, appearing for the municipality is that the amendment should not have been permitted to be made inasmuch as it has the effect of introducing a totally new cause of action and of changing the entire complexion of the suit. In support of this contention reliance has been placed on the case of Kanda v. Waghu, AIR 1950 PC 68 and on the Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Ramgarh Farms and Industries Ltd., 1961 BLJR 28 = (AIR 1961 Pat 302).