IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.476 of 2002 THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS Versus DR. KEDAR NATH PANDEY ----------- 5 07.07.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of the opposite party. The petitioner, State of Bihar seems to be aggrieved by an order dated 13.8.2002 whereby and whereunder the Court below has allowed an amendment in the plaint only to the extent that a cause of action to file this suit had arisen on 1.11.2000. In this context paragraph No.13A allowing such amendment in the plaint reads as follows:- “That on dated 1.11.2000 the defendants threatened the plaintiff and hence, the plaintiff has to file this suit for this cause.” On the basis of the aforementioned amendment initially it was suggested that it was a malafide amendment and in fact the plaintiff- opposite party No.1 sought to be now create a cause of action and as there was no earlier cause of action in the entire plaint. This Court cannot accept such plea as it finds from the perusal of the plaint which is on record by way of Annexure-1. The averments made in paragraph no. 6 onwards in the plaint clearly goes to show that the plaintiff-opposite party was aggrieved on account of certain arrangement made on the post of Director, Indigenous System of Medicine and for that purpose when he had found that an incompetent or ineligible persons now Director, Indigenous System of Medicine had been notified as to hold the post of Director, Indigenous System of Medicine he had filed the suit for a declaration that the defendants are not entitled to take the charge of Director, Indigenous System of Medicine. In the opinion of this Court, for this part of the relief the cause of action is already revealed in paragraph No.10 of the plaint wherein it has been categorically stated that ^^;g fd fcgkj ljdkj }kjk orZeku esa funs'kd ns0fp0 dk pktZ ,d ,sls vf/kdkjh dks fn;k x;k gS tks mifuns'kd ds in ij gS vkSj fofHkUu izdkj dk eqdnek py jgk gSA** In presence of this clear averment in paragraph No.10 of the plaint, counsel for the petitioner, State of Bihar cannot be heard to say that no cause of action had been mentioned in the plaint. It is well settled that the cause of action neither a particular date nor a particular event rather is based on bundle of facts. From the perusal of the entire plaint it thus is absolutely clear that the petitioner had definitely a cause of action and therefore, the sole ground on which the amendment allowed by the Court below has been sought to be assailed must fail. Be that it may, in the opinion of this Court by such amendment would neither change the nature of the suit nor it would cause any prejudice to the petitioner, State of Bihar who are defendants in the suit in the Court below. Accordingly, this Civil Revision application being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. There would be however no order as to costs. BCJ (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)