ORDER : 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. 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. 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, the cause of action is not fatal to the case of the plaintiff, when plaintiff has mentioned it in the body of the plaint. There cannot be any compartmentalization, dissection, segregation and inversions of the language of various paragraphs in the plaint. The plaint has to be read harmoniously by looking into the various facts made out in the plaint.” 8. After taking note of the principles of law in the decisions cited by the counsel for the parties and in an overall view of the matter, the Trial Court has allowed the application for amendment on costs of Rs.1,000/-. 9. Assailing the order aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the pleadings and has strenuously argued that the Trial Court has committed serious error in assuming that the amendment sought for was not changing the nature of the suit or cause of action; because by the amendment sought for, the basic lacuna in the pleadings, of want of cause of action, is sought to be filled up at a later stage. The learned counsel has referred to and relied upon the following decisions: 1. Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and others vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner, (2004) 3 SCC 137 2. Vithalbhai (P) Ltd. vs. Union Bank of India, (2005) 4 SCC 315 3. Soumik Sil vs. Subhas Chandra Sil, (2015) 5 SCC 732 . 10. Having given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made and having examined the record, this Court is unable to find any reason to consider interference in the just and proper order passed by the Trial Court in this matter. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon paragraph 20 in the case of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable (supra), that specifies the distinction between ‘material facts’ and ‘particulars’ as follows: “20. There is distinction between “material facts” and “particulars”. The words “material facts” show that the facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action must be stated. Omission of a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and the statement or plaint becomes bad…..”. 12. There is distinction between “material facts” and “particulars”. The words “material facts” show that the facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action must be stated. Omission of a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and the statement or plaint becomes bad…..”. 12. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., is to keep irresponsible law suits out of Courts; but while dealing with any prayer for rejection of the plaint, the Court would look at the substance of the pleadings after a meaningful, and not formal, reading of the plaint. 13. In the case of Vithalbhai (P) Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court essentially dealt with the question of the suit being a premature one; and in the given set of facts, found that such an objection of the defendant about the suit being premature, was rightly overruled by the learned Single Judge; and the Division Bench of the High Court ought not to have interfered. 14. In the case of Soumik Sil (supra), after examining the plaint averments, the Supreme Court found that the High Court had rightly found that the plaint was not disclosing the cause of action. 15. The decisions aforesaid, essentially proceeding on their own facts, do not make out a case for rejection of the plaint in the present matter. 16. The Courts have, time and again, reiterated that it is the substance of the pleadings that assumes importance and not the form thereof. The cardinal principle that governs the pleadings relating to cause of action is stating ‘material facts’ leading to the filing of the suit and the accrual of right to relief to the plaintiff. It remains trite that the cause of action is essentially a bundle of facts that the plaintiff has to aver, so as to establish his right to seek relief against the defendant. 17. A plain reading of the plaint in the present case makes out that it is self-explanatory in the context of disclosing the cause of action for filing the suit. Herein, as noticed, the plaintiff has clearly pleaded his relationship with the defendant that he was working as Principal in the educational institution of the defendant. 17. A plain reading of the plaint in the present case makes out that it is self-explanatory in the context of disclosing the cause of action for filing the suit. Herein, as noticed, the plaintiff has clearly pleaded his relationship with the defendant that he was working as Principal in the educational institution of the defendant. The plaintiff has also pleaded other facts surrounding his grievance about the non-payment of legally payable dues when he had served for one academic year in the college of the defendant. 18. True it is that in the plaint in question, at the initial stage, the plaintiff did not take complete pleadings as to on what date the cause of action arose and that the suit was within limitation; but such an omission, by itself, is not fatal to the suit, for the reason that essential facts forming the cause of action have indeed been pleaded. In the given circumstances, the amendment as allowed only corrects the form of the plaint and at the same time, appears necessary for effectual determination of real questions in controversy. 19. The Trial Court, in the opinion of this Court, has allowed the application on relevant considerations and no case of jurisdictional error is made out warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 20. In view of the above, this petition stands dismissed.