By way of this writ petition, the petitioner, who is defendant in a money recovery suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent in the Court of II Additional Civil Judge, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada (O.S. No.1485 of 2015), seeks to question the order dated 17.02.2018 passed on I.A. No.1 in the said suit, whereby the plaintiff has been permitted to amend the plaint by inserting a paragraph specifying the cause of action and limitation.

2. The relevant background aspects of the matter are that the suit aforesaid has been filed by the plaintiff-respondent on the allegations that since 02.08.2012, he was serving as Principal in an educational institution headed by the defendant on a consolidated monthly salary of Rs.28,000/-; and had been discharging his duties properly, but the defendant did not settle his legally payable dues; and then raised untenable objections and unilateral remarks, seeking to deny his legally payable dues. The plaintiff-respondent has claimed a money decree in a sum of Rs.2,33,960/- with future interest @ 18% p.a.

3. The defendant-petitioner, while contesting the plaint averments, has, inter alia, alleged that the plaintiff’s behavior towards lady students and teachers had not been proper; and upon receiving complaints, notices were issued to the plaintiff; and, for being appointed on probation, he was sent off by the school administration. The defendant-petitioner also took an objection in the written statement that the plaint was not disclosing the cause of action and the suit was not maintainable.

4. The Trial Court framed the following issues in this suit on 23.06.2017:

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant has not paid legally payable dues to plaintiff?

2. Whether suit is maintainable for nondisclosure of cause of action?

3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for suit claim?

4. What order or decree?

5. On this day itself, i.e., on 23.06.2017, the plaintiff-respondent moved an application seeking leave to amend the plaint by inserting the following as paragraph 5 therein:

“5. The cause of the action for the above suit arose when the plaintiff was denied of his the arrears of his salary and on 06.05.2015 the date on which the plaintiff submitted a representation to the Block Education Officer Moodbidri block and on 11.05.2015 the date on which the Block Education Officer Moodbidri block issued notice to the defendant and on 28.05.2015 the date on which the defendant submitted his untenable objection before the Block Education Officer and on 03.06.2015 the date on which the Moodbidri block issued letter to the parties herein and on 16.06.2015 the date on which the counter reply submitted by the Plaintiff to the Block Education Officer, Moodbidri block and the above suit is filed within the period of limitation and within the jurisdiction of this hon’ble court.”

6. The application so filed by the plaintiff-respondent was opposed by the defendant-petitioner with the submissions that the plaint was required to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.; and that, by way of amendment, the plaintiff was only seeking to fill up the lacuna which was not permissible in law.

7. The petitioner’s stiff opposition to the application seeking leave to amend the plaint has been considered and rejected by the Trial Court and the amendment has been allowed with the observations that the cause of action is required to be gathered from the reading of the plaint as a whole; and the amendment sought for is not changing the nature of the suit or cause of action. The Trial Court has, inter alia, found that the bundle of events leading to the filing of the suit has been mentioned, though separate pleadings specifying the cause of action were not taken. The Trial Court has observed as under:-

“11. It could be gathered from Paragraph No.3 of the plaint that bundle of events, which leads to filing of the suit was mentioned, but that was not specifically culled out in Paragraph of Cause of Action. Omission of mentioning specifically, t