Cause of Action – Ground to Initiate Proceedings
An expression ‘ Cause of Action’ has neither been defined under the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 nor under the other existing laws, however, its meaning could be construed from various provisions of C.P.C. Cause of Action is the basis for maintainability of suit. Grounds that compels or entitles the plaintiff to institute a suit is referred to as ‘Cause of Action’. Cause of Action includes not only the rights of the plaintiff but also the facts that disclose the infringements of its rights.
Table of Contents
- Meaning of Cause of Action
- UBI JUS Remidium
- CPC Provisions of Cause of Action
- Criminal Aspect of Cause of Action
- Case Laws
UBI JUS IBI REMIDIUM – where there is right there is remedy
This maxim concludes that when any right of Plaintiff is infringed by the defendant, then the valid cause of action plays a vital role in availing appropriate relief to the plaintiff, and infringement of plaintiff’s right can also be in case there is a valid cause of action.
In the case of Gloucester Grammar School case Defendant started a school right in front of the plaintiff’s school and the plaintiff suffered huge monetary loss. In this case, the court held that the legal rights of the plaintiff were not infringed as there was no cause of action, and therefore the suit was declared as non-maintainable and was dismissed. This shows that where the valid cause of action is not present then such suit is liable to be dismissed.
Cause of action’s significance could be determined through the recent case of Supreme Court titled ‘ Zee Telefilms Ltd V Suresh Productions’ , 2020 (3) MLJ 236, where the Supreme Court held that Cause of Action accrues only when there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringement of right.
It has its significance not only in the Indian legal domain but also under an international domain. The classic definition of the expression ‘ Cause of action. In the case Cooke v Gill, Lord Brett has defined Cause of Action’ as every fact which if would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove if traversed in order to support his right to the judgment of the court.
In the case Alchemist Limited and Another V State Bank of Sikkim and Others, 2007 Supreme Court has defined Cause of Action as a bundle of facts necessary for the plaintiff to prove before he can succeed.
Cause of action is a bundle of facts that needs to be taken with the law applicable to them and the order provides to the plaintiff the right to relief against the defendant. Every fact which is necessary for the plaintiff to prove to enable him to get a decree should be set out in clear terms. . A cause of action must include acts done by the defendant and in the absence of any acts by the defendant, no cause of action can possibly accrue; Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society v. Ponniamman Educational Trust, AIR 2012 SC
There are certain provisions under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which talks about Cause of Action’.
- Order 2 rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is the first instance that contains an expression ‘Cause of Action’. As the suit shall include the whole of theclaim to which the plaintiff is entitled, for a cause of action in a suit. The claim is very different from the cause of action. A Claim is something that originates from the cause of action. A claim is basically a remedy for the wrong done to the plaintiff by the defendant which is originated through the cause of action in any suit. A suit cannot be filed without it. Several claims can be clubbed together in a single cause of action so that there wouldn’t be any multiplicity of a suit.
- Order 2 rule 3 of CPC, 1908 joinder of the cause of action- plaintiff may unite in a suit several causes of action against the same defendant/s jointly and any plaintiffs having causes of action which they are jointly interested against the same defendant/s jointly may unite such causes of action in a suit.
- Section 20 of CPC, 1908talks about territorial jurisdiction. Under this section, clause (c) states that the plaintiff may institute a suit where the cause of action wholly or partly arises. The determination of territorial jurisdiction of an agreement for the sale of a movable property would be governed by Section 20 and not to be governed by Section 16 and Section 19 of CPC. Under Sections 16 to 19 CPC, the question of territorial jurisdiction arises where the immovable property is situated as the cause of action is the immovable property itself.
- Order 7 rule 11 of CPC, 1908 provides the grounds for the rejection of a plaint. The first foremost ground is the non-disclosure of cause of action. Under clause (a) it has been stated that plaint can be rejected on the ground of non- disclosure of Cause of Action. It says that for the purpose of instituting a suit, the cause of action needs to be explicitly mentioned in the plaint.
- Section 12 of CPC talks about Bar to further suit -If a plaintiff has been restrained to file a suit for a specific cause of action then he cannot file a suit in any other court for the said cause of action.
Recently in the case titled Dahiben V Arvind bhai kalyanji Bhanusali Supreme Court had discussed the test for determining the application of order 7rule 11. The Court must determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by reading the plaint as a whole along with the documents that are relied upon. If by the meaningful reading of a plaint, it is found that plaint is manifestly vexatious and without any merit and does not disclose a right to sue. (as there is no cause of action) , then in such a case courts are justified in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 rule 11.
As the law is based on logic and common sense and not on mathematics so 2+2 sometimes is not always 4, Reason for No right answer to a legal problem is – as it is based on reasoning, any answer to a legal problem is acceptable until the better reason come along and justify their side and the answer changes.
There are cases where the trial court have passed the judgment which has been turned over by high court and that judgment is again turned over by supreme court, which can be overturned by the latest bench of the supreme court.
In the landmark case of Navtej Singh johar and Ors V Union of India and Ors, (2018), where the Supreme Court earlier held that Section 377 is an offence but now it is not.
The answer to a legal problem had been overturned by a higher authority. Does that mean the judges in the lower hierarchy are not good enough to be a judge?
The judges are answering the legal problem best to their legal reasoning and judicial mind, as the answer to the legal question can change through time, reason, and facts.
Criminal Aspect
The root of Cause of Action is not just the extent to Civil disputes only, it plays a vital role in the criminal aspect as well. Section 177 of C.R.P.C, 1973 says that every offence shall be enquired and tried by the court within whose local jurisdiction an offence was committed. While in civil cases, an expression ‘cause of action’ is used, in criminal cases reference is made to the local jurisdiction where the offence was committed. Therefore, variations in both aspects do not render the position different. Cause of not a stranger to criminal cases.
In the case, Swaati Nirkhi and Ors V State ( NCT of Delhi) and Ors, Supreme Court on 9th March, 2021 held that criminal case ought to enquire into and tried ordinarily where the cause of action accrued.
As this can be concluded that the basis for initiating a proceeding in a court either criminal or civil, the ground needs to be clear and that must show why the party has come to court and how is their right gets infringed by any person (by showing cause the of action in case)