Notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not a part of the plaintiff's cause of action.

( 1 ) THIS is an application for amendment of the plaint. The amendment sought for is proposed paragraph 12 (a) namely, that due notice under Section 80 was duly served on the defendant over two months prior to the institution of the suit. The suit was instituted on 26-4-1958. The summons is dated 3-5-1958. Two points were urged against the proposed amendment. First, that the application is a belated one, second, that the application introduces a new cause of action.

( 2 ) I shall first deal with the question whe ther the amendment sought for is one which intro duces a new cause of action. In other words, the question is whether notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a part of the plaintiffs cause of action. If it is a part of the plaintiffs cause of action the defendant contends that the application should be refused because first, the cause of action is barred by limitation and second ly, leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is, necessary therefor and the same cannot be granted at this stage to enable the plaintiff to add a fresh cause of action.

( 3 ) THE phrase cause of action has not been defined in any statute but the meaning of it has been judicially considered. In Mt. Chand Koer v. Partab Singh, 15 Ind App 156 (PC), Lord Watson observed:". . . . The cause of action has no relation whatever to the defence which may be set up, nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. It refers entirely to the grounds set out in the plaint as the cause of action or in other words to the media upon which the plaintiff asks to arrive at a conclusion in his favour. "

( 4 ) IN Muhammad Hafiz v. Muhmmad Zakariya, 49 Ind App 9 at p. 15: (AIR 1922 PC 23 at p. 26), Lord Buckmaster observed that "the cause of action is the cause of action which gives occasion for and forms the foundation of the suit. " Their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in that case considered Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure which says that "every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action. " Their Lordships also referred to an earlier decision of the Board in Raja of Pittapur v. Venkata Mahipati Surya, 12 Ind App 116 (PC) where it was held that the cause of action means the cause of action for which the suit is brought.

( 5 ) CAUSE of action has been held in Cooke v. Gill (1873) 8 C. P. 107 to mean every fact which is material to be proved. Lord Esher, M. R. in Read v. Brown 1888-22 QBD 128 stated the meaning of cause of action as every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his light to the judgment of the Court. Cause of action was held not to comprise every piece of evidence which is necessary to prove each fact, but every fact which is necessary to be proved. In Engineering Supplies Ltd. v. Dhandhania and Co. , ILR 58 Cal 539: (AIR 1931 Cal 659), Rankin, C. J. observed that cause of action means the entire set of facts that gives rise to an enforceable claim or in the words of Fry L. J. "everything which if not proved gives tile defendant an immediate right to judgment, every fact which is material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed, every fact which the defendant could have a right to traverse. "

( 6 ) THUS cause of action has one meaning in relation to the basis of a claim and another in relation to the jurisdiction of Court. The former is the restricted and the latter is the wider meaning of cause of action. In the restricted sense it includes facts constituting the infringement of the right and is thus the cause which is the foundation of the suit. In the wider sense it includes facts constituting the right itself. The expression cause of action for the purpose of jurisdiction of the Court was held by Das J. (now Chief Justice of India) in Madanlal Jalan v. Madan Lal, 49 Cal WN 357: (AIR 1949 Cal 495) to be. an expression of wide