Judgment :- 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. 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 cannot be treated as equivalent to bringing a suit against the Panchayat, as contemplated by S.123. 6. It was submitted on behalf of the revision petitioner that when the suit was originally filed, it was perfectly in order because no notice is necessary for filing a suit for injunction. At a later stage, when the suit was sought to be amended by adding prayers other than injunction, the petitioner issued notice as contemplated by S.123. He having thus complied with the mandatory provision u/s.123, there was no justification for rejecting the application. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent strongly opposed the contention raised by the petitioner. At a later stage, when the suit was sought to be amended by adding prayers other than injunction, the petitioner issued notice as contemplated by S.123. He having thus complied with the mandatory provision u/s.123, there was no justification for rejecting the application. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent strongly opposed the contention raised by the petitioner. According to the learned counsel„ the provisions contained under S.123 of the Kerala Panchayats Act and the provisions contained under S.80 of C.P.C. regarding notice, are included in the statutes for a specific purpose not to drag the public officers to the court unnecessarily. She submitted that -even when the suit was filed, licence was already issued. A suit, which was filed without issuing notice as contemplated by S.123 of the Act cannot be allowed to be converted into a suit which requires a notice under S.123 by way of amendment. According to counsel, such a procedure would defeat the very purpose of S.123. Learned counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bihari Chowdhary andanr. v. State of Bihar and ors., AIR 1984 SC 1043 to support her contention regarding the scheme of S.80 of C.P.C. in the nature as a measure of public policy. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent also supported the contention raised by the first respondent. 7. Admittedly, when the suit was filed, it was mainly for an injunction and therefore no notice u/s.123 was necessary. Respondents have no case that the plaintiff, with the knowledge of the fact that licence was "already issued fraudulently filed a suit, restricting the prayer to that of an injunction so that no notice need be issued before filing the suit. During the pendency of the suit. When it was found necessary that the plaint has to be amended by adding more prayers other than mere injunction, the plaintiff issued notice as contemplated u/s.123 of the Act and waited for the statutory period. It was thereafter the application for amendment was filed I am of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to seek an amendment of the plaint after complying with the provisions contained u/s.123 of the Act in respect of issue of notice. There is no justification for denying the same only on the ground that when the suit was originally filed it was only seeking an injunction and therefore did. There is no justification for denying the same only on the ground that when the suit was originally filed it was only seeking an injunction and therefore did. not require a notice u/s.123 of the Kerala Panchayats Act. In the decision of the Supreme Court relied on by learned counsel for the first respondent, the scheme of S.80 of C.P.C. has been explained as follows: "When wa examine the scheme of the section it becomes obvious that the section has been enacted as a measure of public policy with the object of ensuring that before a suit is instituted against the Government or a public officer, the Government or the officer concerned is afforded an opportunity to scrutinise the claim in respect of which the suit is proposed to be filed and if it be found to be a just claim, to take immediate action and thereby avoid unnecessary litigation and save public time and money by settling the claim without driving Hie person who has issued the notice to institute the suit involving considerable expenditure and delay. The Government unlike private parties, is expected to consider matter covered by the notice in a most objective manner, after obtaining such legal advice as they may think fit, and take a decision in public interest within the period of two months allowed by the section as to. whether the claim is just and reasonable and the contemplated suit should, therefore, be avoided by speedy negotiations and settlement or whether the claim should be resisted by fighting out the suit if and when it is instituted. There is clearly a public purpose underlying the mandatory provision contained in the section insisting on the issuance of a notice setting out the particulars of the proposed suit and giving two months 'time to Government or a public officer before a suit can be instituted against them. The object of the section is the advancement of justice and the securing of public good by avoidance of unnecessary litigation". The provisions contained in S.123 of the Kerala Panchayat Act is also enacted in the light of the public policy referred in the above decision. If that be so, if a plaintiff is allowed to amend the plaint after issuing necessary notice as contemplated under this section, it cannot be said that it will defeat the very purpose for which S.123 was enacted. 8. If that be so, if a plaintiff is allowed to amend the plaint after issuing necessary notice as contemplated under this section, it cannot be said that it will defeat the very purpose for which S.123 was enacted. 8. The court below has committed an error in rejecting the application for amendment on the ground that it will change the nature of the suit. When the plaintiff found that licence was already issued, it was fully justified on his part to seek an amendment of the plaint for further relief challenging the licence granted and also the further proceedings pursuant to the issue of the licence. It is not necessary to file a fresh suit as observed by the court below. In view of the above discussion the order passed by the court below is set aside and the revision petition stands allowed. Since the suit is of the year 1985, the court below will expedite the trial of the suit and complete the same within a period of six months.