Highlight the importance of concept of cause of

action in the light of framing of a suit.

(Assignment towards fulfilment of the assessment in the subject Drafting,
Pleading & Conveyancing)

Submitted by:
Submitted to:
Reeya Singh

Mr.

Deepankar Sharma
Roll No. 843

Faculty

of Law
Semester X

National Law University, Jodhpur

Winter Session

(January May, 2015)

INTRODUCTION:
Every suit presupposes the existence of a cause of action against the defendant because if
there is no cause of action the plaint will have to be rejected. 1 Even though the expression
cause of action has not been defined in the Code, it may be described as bundle of
essential facts, which it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove before he can succeed, 2 or,
which gives the plaintiff right to relief against the defendant. 3 Thus, it means every fact,
which it is necessary to establish to support a right or obtain a judgment. 4 To put it differently,
it gives occasion for and forms the foundation of the suit.5 The classical definition was given
in the case of Cooke v. Gill6, wherein Lord Brett observed:
Cause of Action means every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if
traversed, in order to support his right to the judgement of the court.7
The term Cause of Action is mentioned in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 in various
places. The first such instance is in Order I Rule 8 where in the explanation it is written that
the parties being represented in the suit need not have the same cause of action as the person
they are being represented by. The fact that a Cause of Action is essential to a suit is
represented in Order II Rule 2 of the Code wherein it is stated that a plaint must mention the
cause of action if it is to be instituted as a suit. Order VII Rule 1 reaffirms the same. Also,
expression cause of action is therefore not a stranger to criminal cases.8
Cause of action is the media upon which the plaintiff asks the court to arrive at a conclusion
in his favour.9 It must be antecedent to the institution of the suit. And on the basis of that it
must be filed. Whether any particular facts constitute a cause of action has to be determined
with reference to the fact of each case, taking into consideration the substance of the matter
rather than form of action.10
1

R. 11(a)
Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram, (1978)2 SCC 91, A.B.C Laminart (P) Ltd v. AP Agencies (1989) 2 SCC 163
(170)
3
ABC Laminart Ltd. v. AP Agencies, Infra.
4
Sadanandan v. Madhavan, (1998) 6 SCC 514 (518).
5
Sidramappa v. Rajashetty (1970) 1 SCC 186 (189)
6
21 WR 334
7
AK Gupta v. Damodar Valley Corp, AIR 1967 SC 96, Bloom Dekor Ltd v. Subhash (1994) 6 SCC 322 (328)
8
Sujata Mukherjee v. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee, 1997 (5) SCC 30
9
Chand Kaur v. Partab Singh (1889) 16 Cal 98 (102), State of Madras v. CP AgenciesAIR 1960 SC 1309
10
Janakiram Iyer v. Nilakanta Iyer, AIR 1962 SC 633
2

In Kuldeep Singh v. Ganpat Lal,11 stated: The object underlying Order 7, Rule 1(e), which
requires that plaint shall contain the particulars about the fact constituting the cause of action
and when it arose, is to enable the court to find out whether the plaint discloses the cause of
action because the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC if it doesnt
disclose the cause of action. The purpose behind the requirement that the plaint should
indicate when the cause of action arose is to help the court in ascertaining whether the suit is
not barred with the limitation. Any error on the part of the plaintiff in indicating the date on
which the cause of action arose would be of little consequence if it had arisen on the date on
which the suit was filed and the suit was within limitation from the said date. The error in
mentioning the date on which it had arisen in the plaint in such a case would not disentitle the
plaintiff from seeking relief from the court in the suit.
Where the plaintiff seeks relief in respect of several distinct claim or cause of action founded
upon separate and distinct grounds, he should state them as far a possible separately and
distinctly.12
TYPES OF CAUSE OF ACTION

The Cause of Action is the very natural essential to a Civil suit, since without a cause of
action a civil suit can not arise. Any claim that is made in the suit flows from the cause of
action, therefore, claims made must be with respect to the cause of action from where they
arise. A cause of action is said to consist of two parts:

legal theory (the legal wrong the plaintiff claims to have suffered) and
the remedy (the relief a court is asked to grant)

Civil Suits and Cause of Action

The Code covers institution of certain suits under Sections 16, 17 and 19. Section 20 of the
Code provides that the suits which do not come within the purview of Section 16 to 19 of the
Code are to be instituted where the defendants reside or cause of action arises. In case where
the dispute between two or more persons with respect to movable property, business or any
other wrong done, the suits have to be filed where the defendant resides or cause of
action wholly or in part arises. But in some cases, the place where cause of action arises
may be far away from where the plaintiff resides. In such a case, the plaintiff can file a single
suit under Clause (b) of Section 20 where anyone of the defendants resides. But only when
11
12

AIR 1996 SC 729

R8

either the other defendants should not oppose the same or the court must give pemission to
the plaintiff for so instituting the suit. But cause of action is not an isolated one, nor a
single instance. A number of circumstances and instances constitute cause of action. That
means cause of action may arise at more than one place. That is to say arise wholly or in part.
It is clear from Clause (c) of Section 20, that suits covered under Section 20 can be filed
where cause of action arises wholly or in part.
Joinder/Misjoinder of Cause of Action
Order II, Rules 3-5 provides several causes of action to be joinder in one suit. When an
objection duly taken with regard to misjoinder of causes of action is allowed by the Court the
plaintiff should be permitted to select the cause of action with which he will proceed and the
Court should grant him time to amend the plaint by striking out the remaining causes of
action. All objections on the grounds of misjoinder of causes of action shall be taken at the
earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are framed at or before the framing
of the issues unless ground for such objection has subsequently arisen and any such objection
not so taken shall be deemed to have been waived, it has, therefore been held that misjoinder
of causes of action being not an inherent lack of jurisdiction, if the objection is not
raised at the earliest possible opportunity it stands waived. The Court should also give the
plaintiff time within which to submit amended plaints for the remaining causes of action and
for making up the Court fee that may be necessary13. Rule 6 of Order II, however, provides
that where it appears to the court that the joinder of causes of action in one suit may
embarrass or delay the trial or is otherwise inconvenient, the court may order separate trials.
Rule 4 of Order II lays down that no cause of action shall, unless with the leave of the court,
be joined with a suit for the recovery of immovable property, except:
1. Claims for mesne profit or arrears of rent in respect of the property claimed or any
part thereof;
2. Claims for damages for breach of any contract under which the property or any
part thereof is held;
3. Claims in which the relief sought is based on the same cause of action.
The proviso to this rule states that nothing in this rule shall be deemed to prevent any party in
a suit for foreclosure or redemption from asking to be put into possession of the mortgaged
property. Order II, Rule 4 deals with the joinder of claims. The rule provides that in a suit for
13

Order II, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code

the recovery of immovable property, no claims other than those specified in the three
exceptions shall be joined without leave of the Court.
Cause of Action in a suit for contract
When the negotiations to a Contract were conducted between two places X and Y and
acceptance to the contract was communicated at Y, the court at Y was held to have
jurisdiction to entertain the case. The forum for the breach of contract arises at the place the
breach occurred or at the place the performance was to be made. It could not be filed at
the place the offer was accepted. But it has been held that in relation to a contract cause of
action arises where contract was made, or the place where the performance was to be made or
performance thereof was completed or the place where in pursuance of the performance any
money to which the suit relates was expressly or impliedly payable. In case of Contract by
correspondence, contract takes place where the acceptance of the contract was made.
It has, therefore, been held that in case of repudiation of contract or for non payment of price
the place where the acceptance letter was received is not relevant for determining where the
cause of action arose. The cause of action arose at the place of posting the letter of
acceptance.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
Rule 1 Order 2 of the court lays down rules for framing a suit. The object being giving effect
o the maxim- interest republicae ut sits finislitium, i.e. it is in the interest of the state that
there should be an end to litigation. All matters should be disposed off in the same suit. 14 Rule
1 Order 2 of the code is mandatory in nature and plaintiffs are duty bound to claim the entire
relief15. The suit has to be framed so as to afford ground for final decision upon the
subjects. Further, cause of action is sine qua non for attracting the mischief contemplated
under Order II, Rule 2. For showing it that the subsequent suit is hit by Rule 2, the defendant
must produce certified copy of the plaint of the earlier suit. If the claim in subsequent suit is
founded on different cause of action, Rule 2 is no bar. In Deva Ram v Ishwar Chand16 the
Supreme Court held that for applying the bar under Rule 2 Order 3, identification of cause of
action is essential. In Shiv Sharma v Santosh Kumari17, the supreme court held that the High
Courts cannot frame additional issues of its own which did not arise for consideration in the
14

Kewal Singh v Lajwant, (1980) 1 SCC 290

Sopn Sable v Asstt. Charity Commissioner AIR 2004 SC 1801
16
AIR 1996 SC 378
17
AIR 2008 SC 171
15

suit. It may also be pertinent to mention here that although Rule 2 Order 2 of the court bars
the second suit, Rule 4 of the said order is an exception and the High Court cannot be said
have committed any error. In case of omission to sue for one of several reliefs, Rule 2(3),
Order 2 of the Code will be applied, under which if a person omits, without the leave of the
court, to sue for such reliefs; he shall not afterwards sue for any relief omitted.
In Khoday Distilleries Limited v Scotch Association 18, the court held that is the plaintiff stood
by knowingly and let the defendants build up an important trade until it had become
necessary to crush it, then the plaintiffs would be stopped by their acquiescence.
CONCLUSION
It can be concluded that in case of immovable property or where the immovable property is
situated at different places and within the territorial jurisdiction of different Courts, there
place of cause of action is immaterial. Place of residence of plaintiff or defendant is also
immaterial. Suit can be filed where any portion of the immovable property situates. As far as
suits regarding compensation for wrong to immovable property held by defendant, the place
of residence of plaintiff is immaterial. Suits can be filed where the defendant resides, or
wrong was done in relation to immovable property. In case of suits involving tortious liability
claiming compensation for wrongs to person or movables, the place of residence of plaintiff
is immaterial. The suit can be filed where the defendant resides or where the wrong was done
to the person or movable property (cause of action). Regarding other suits, the place of
residence of plaintiff is immaterial. Where there are more than one defendant, and are
residing at different places, different suits have to be filed at different places where
defendants reside. As it is very costly and not convenient, suit can be filed where anyone of
the defendants resides, with the leave of the court or if the other defendants do not object.
Therefore, in all cases, the place of residence or where the plaintiff is residing is immaterial.
No suit can be filed exclusively on the basis of place of residence of plaintiff. The reason is
obvious. Plaintiff is the person who files the suit and drags the defendant to court. If he is
allowed to file the suit as he pleases, he may take advantage of it and may harass the
defendant by simply filing suits within the local jurisdiction of court where he resides.

18

AIR 2008 SC 2737