The main legal point established in the judgment is that a plaintiff is entitled to seek an amendment of the plaint after complying with the provisions of S.123 of the Kerala Panchayats Act, and such amendment does not change the nature of the suit.

Plaintiff in O.S.342/85 and petitioner in LA. 2314/88 is the revision petitioner. O.S.342/85 was originally filed with a prayer to restrain the 1st defendant by means of permanent prohibitory injunction from issuing licence to the 2nd defendant for running a rice and flour mill in the plaint schedule property and also to restrain the 2nd defendant from constructing, establishing or functioning a rice or flour mill in the plaint schedule property without obtaining statutory licence.

2. 1st defendant, who is the Executive Officer of the Panchayat submitted before the court that licence has already been issued to the 2nd defendant even before the suit was filed. The plaintiff then filed I. A. 878/86 praying for amendment of the plaint so as to include a prayer for declaration that the licence, if any, issued by-the first defendant-Panchayat was without compliance with the statutory requirement and therefore illegal and invalid and that the 2nd defendant was not entitled to function the mill on the basis of the licence thus issued. The above LA. was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that no statutory notice as contemplated by the Kerala- Panchayat Act was. issued by the Plaintiff before seeking the amendment.

3. S.123 of the Kerala Panchayats is Act, 1960 provides that 'subject to the provision under S.124 no suit or other legal proceedings than a suit for injunction shall be brought against any Panchayat or its President or executive authority in respect of any act done or purporting to be done under the Act or in respect of any alleged neglect or default in execution of the Act or any Rule, bye-law, regulation or order made under it, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing to be issued by the plaintiff with all the details mentioned in the same section. The above provision would show that before filing a suit for injunction against a Panchayat Executive Officer, no notice under S.123 is contemplated. Therefore, when O.S.342/85 was filed by the plaintiff with a prayer for injunction restraining the Panchayat from issuing a licence to the 2nd respondent, it was not necessary that notice should have been issued as contemplated by S.123 of the Act. But, when the plaint was sought to be amended by incorporating other prayers, the mandatory directions. 123 would come into play. It was on this basis, LA. 878/86 was dismissed.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner issued a notice as provided under the Act to the first defendant-Panchayat Executive Officer on 7-9-1988 and the same was received by the -Executive officer on 13-9-1988- A reply was received by the plaintiff on 17-11-1988. After expiration of two months, the plaintiff filed LA. 2314/88 for amending the plaint so as to enable him to incorporate a prayer for declaration that the licence issued by the 1st defendant-Panchayat is without complying with the statutory provisions and requirements and hence the licence issued is illegal and invalid and the 2nd defendant is not entitled to function the mill on the strength of the licence and consequently to prohibit the 2nd defendant by a permanent injunction from functioning the mill in the plaint schedule property.

5. The above application was rejected by the court below mainly on three grounds. The court below found that the remedy of the plaintiff was to file a fresh suit after issuing notice and expiry of the statutory period. The court below also found that if the amendment is allowed, it will change the nature of the suit. On an interpretation of the provisions contained u/s.123 of the Kerala Panchayats Act, the court below took the view that once a suit was filed without issuing the statutory notice, as in the present case, seeking only injunction, thereafter the very same suit cannot be proceeded after making an amendment to the prayer, even though, before seeking such amendment, notice was issued to the executive officer. Apparently, the court below is taking the view that seeking an amendment