CAUSE OF ACTION

I. INTRODUCTION

A dispute begins with a cause and so does a successful claim require a cause. Thus
comes in the relevance for examining this first step of litigation: cause of action.
Construed in legal terms as the pivotal ingredients for successfully establishing a legal
claim, ‘cause of action’ symbolizes the basis for claim and is also relevant for other
purposes such as computation of limitation period, determination of the proper forum for
filing of claim, etc.
This paper makes an analysis of the ‘cause of action’ as a concept of practical usage
and understanding as instrumental in drafting of and filing of legal claims in judicial
forums. Cause of action, as properly understood, reflects the reason for grievances
which have been unsettled in so much so that a claim is filed in a court of law for their
redressal. As the redressal in the court would be based upon the whether the grievance
can be justified given the provisions of law, the cause of action must also purport to
raise a legal claim, sans which the action would fail.
Cause of action has another dimension. It indicates the procedure that would be
applicable for the legal action. For example, where the grievance returns for non-
payment of money, a money-suit would be preferable. Similarly bouncing of cheque
may entail a criminal action as well. Therefore often the practice in the legal fraternity
goes like moulding of the cause of action in anticipation of the relief claimed.
It is the examination of all these facets and other legal interpretations assigned to the
concept of ‘cause of action’ that forms the subject matter of this paper. The aim is to
examine, legalistically, this concept with an exclusive threshold limit of the Indian
context.

Electronic
Electroniccopy
copyavailable
availableat:
at:https://ssrn.com/abstract=1087352
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1087352
II. CAUSE OF ACTION EXPLORED

“Cause of action means every fact which it would be necessary for the
plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment
of the court.”
Lord Brett1
This observation of Lord Brett entails much on the dimensions and contours of ‘cause of
action’ as a concept and as its understanding in legal fraternity. It can also be said to be
referring to the bundle of essential facts and refers entirely to the media upon which the
plaintiff asks to arrive at the conclusion in their favour.2 What must be noted here is that
the nature of suit or even the form of action is one thing and the cause of action is
another. The nature of suit may be ascertained or determined by looking at the kind of
relief asked for in the suit. However the cause of action is made up of a number of facts
which are necessary to be pleaded and which, if established would enable the plaintiff
to obtain from the Court the remedy against the defendant.3
Law recognises ‘cause of action’ as a kind of legal claim that a plaintiff pleads or alleges
in a complaint to start a lawsuit. Usually the cause of action is either a legal claim or a
claim in equity wherein the legal claims imply those based in law of a particular
jurisdiction while equitable claims are those based on the common law interpretation of
what is right and wrong and what would be needed to make everyone whole again.
A ‘Cause of action’ encompasses both the legal provision of what legal wrong the
plaintiff claims to have suffered, and the remedy, which is the relief a court is asked to
grant. The points a plaintiff must prove to win a given type of case are called the
‘elements’ of that cause of action. Causes of action are more commonly referred to as
‘claims.’ For a claim of negligence, for example, the elements are: the (existence of a)
duty, breach (of that duty), proximate cause (because of the breach), and damages. If a
complaint does not allege facts sufficient to support every element of a claim, the court,

1
Coke v. Gill, (1873) 8 CP 107 (116).
2
Mannappa v. Bhaskaraapa, AIR 1987 Kant. 113.
3
Orientirion Publicity v. Golden Plastics, 92 Mad LW 78.

Electronic
Electroniccopy
copyavailable
availableat:
at:https://ssrn.com/abstract=1087352
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1087352
upon motion by the opposing party, may dismiss the complaint for failure to state a
claim, for which relief can be granted.
On these lines, in Lord Esher M.R.4 adopted the definition for ‘cause of action’ to mean,
"every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to
support his right to the judgment of the Court. It does not comprise every piece of
evidence which is necessary to prove each fact, but every fact which is necessary to be
proved.”
The Privy Council has noted5 that the aforesaid definition adopted by Lord Esher M.R.
had been followed in India. Even thereafter the Courts in India have consistently
followed the said interpretation without exception for understanding the scope of the
expression cause of action.
Even in the context of Article 226(2) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court adopted the
same interpretation to the expression ‘cause of action wholly or in part arises’.6 At
another instance, it was also observed7 that it is well settled that the expression 'cause
of action' means that bundle of facts which the petitioner must prove which, if traversed
would entitle him to a judgment in his favour. Chief Justice Ahmadi, in that case even
went on to caution the High Courts against transgressing into the jurisdiction of the
other High Courts merely on the ground of some insignificant event connected with the
cause of action took place within the territorial limits of the High Court to which the
litigant approaches at his own choice or convenience. It was observed,
“If an impression gains ground that even in cases which fall outside the
territorial jurisdiction of the Court, certain members of the Court would be
willing to exercise jurisdiction on the plea that some event, however, trivial
and unconnected with the cause of action had occurred within the
jurisdiction of the said Court, litigants would seek to abuse the process by
carrying the cause before such members giving rise to avoidable

4
Read v. Brown, 1889 (22) QBD 128.
5
Mohd. Khalil Khan v. Malibub Ali Mian, AIR 1949 PC 78.
6
State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties, MANU/SC/0304/1985.
7
Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu & Anr., MANU/SC/0759/1994.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1087352

 suspicion. That would lower the dignity of the institution and put the entire
system to ridicule. We are greatly pained to say so but if we do not
strongly depreciate the growing tendency we will, we are afraid, be failing
in our duty to the institution and the system of administration of justice. We
do hope that we will not have another occasion to deal with such a
situation.”8
It must here also be noted that ‘cause of action’ does not comprise every piece of
evidence which is necessay to prove each fact, but only takes within its ambit the fact
which is necessary to be proved. Evidence of a fact should not be confused with the fact
itself. Even infinitesimal fraction of cause of action will be part of cause of action and will
confer on the court the territorial Jurisdiction to hear the matter where it occurs.
The Calcutta High Court, examining the nuances of the concept, has observed that
cause of action in its widest sense means the necessary conditions for the maintenance
of the suit and in its restricted sense means the circumstances forming the infringement
of right or the immediate occasion for the action.9 In legal parlance the expression
‘cause of action’ is generally understod to mean a situation or state of facts that entitles
a party to maintain an action in a court or a tribunal. In other words, one can say it is
group of operative facts giving rise to one or more bases for suing or a factual situation
that entitles one person to obtain a rmedy in court from other person.10
Thus we find that the expression connotes a judicially settled meaning. In the restricted
sense cause of action means the circumstances forming the infraction of the right or the
immediate occasion for the action. The cause of action cannot be something which will
accrue in future. For example, in the case of Ouseph v. Thomas11, wherein Plaint A
schedule property is the paddy field belonging to the plaintiff. East of it, defendant is
having 27 1/2 cents of paddy field which is higher in level than the plaintiff's paddy field
by 8 feet. In between the two paddy fields there is a canal and a bund together having a
width of 5 feet. Plaint B schedule property is land measuring 20 feet in width out of the
8
Ibid.
9
Niranjan v. Union of India, AIR 1960 Cal. 391.
10
Navin Chandra v. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 7 SCC 640.
11
AIR 1987 Ker. 75.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1087352

defendant's paddy field lying adjacent to that of the plaintiff. It is alleged by the plaintiff
that the defendant has dug pits in B schedule property for planting rubber. Alleging that
the rubber plants when grown up will cause damage to his cultivation plaintiff prayed for
an injunction restraining the defendant from planting rubber or other shady trees in B
schedule property and from using B schedule property for any purpose damageous to
the use of his property. The prayer for injunction was thus put very widely. The claim
was resisted by the defendant on various grounds. One of the grounds was that the
cause of action has not taken place and is based only on an apprehension. The High
Court of Kerala observed in the instant case as;
“… how can we assume with certainty that in future some damage is going
to happen and therefore it has to be restrained by an injunction even now.
Even if the plaintiff has any legal right the question of that legal right being
affected in order to afford a cause of action will arise only when the right is
affected. … Let us assume that trees will grow up and branches will
overhang. Better remedy than the one to which the plaintiff may be entitled
to at that time cannot be claimed by him now even conceding that he has
got a cause of action on the basis of the apprehended future damage or
nuisance. Protruding or overhanging branches are in the air and they may
not amount to encroachment or trespass. It will only constitute a nuisance,
damage or inconvenience. When he incurs no damage, inconvenience or
nuisance, he has no cause of action.”
Thus it was held by the court that only an apprehension cannot be the basis of a suit for
injunction. For similar reasoning, the High Court of Allahabad observed in Raj Kumar v.
Jagwati12 that the date mentioned in the plaint as the date of accrual of cause of action
is not conclusive. It is to be gathered from the whole plaint.

12
AIR 1980 All. 225.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1087352

III. SIGNIFICANCE OF CAUSE OF ACTION

Cause of action plays a vital role for the successful outcome of a claim. The discussion
can be undertaken on various counts. However it is expedient to undertake the inquiry
in a limited scope with exhaustive determination. For this purpose, I have chosen to
examine the significance of ‘cause of action’ from the perspective of drafting of
pleadings and its implications and also the establishment of jurisdictions of courts.
(i) Pleadings
Pleading in general can be defined as a statement in writing made by a party to the
proceedings setting out in summary form the material facts on which that party relies for
its claim or defence. While there is no substantial role of pleadings in criminal
proceedings, they are the basis of the decisions in civil proceedings. The primary
function of pleadings is to define the issues between the parties. That necessarily
involves both parties with one party setting out the material facts on which he or she
relies for the claim with the other party doing the same (including responding to the first
party's facts) for the defence, and then, if necessary, the first party replying and so on.
From this flow other functions.
First, the clear definition of issues may reveal the opportunity to have the proceedings
disposed of short of a full hearing, by an application to strike out or for summary
judgment or an application for the decision of a separate question. It should be stressed
that it is not often that this will be so, but if it is a proper case then the costs of a full
hearing may be avoided.
Secondly, the parties can then prepare their respective cases knowing what they have
to establish, or meet, by evidence, and having a pretty good idea of the questions of law
which will arise. If the issues are clearly defined, the time of the parties and the energies
of their lawyers will not be wasted on false issues and the preparation and hearing time
will be fewer adjournments will rarely be necessary; and the costs will be less. This
should be a powerful incentive to proper pleading.
Thirdly, many interlocutory steps are taken having regard to the issues defined in the
pleadings. The relevance of documents to be discovered, the necessity for (and
particular subjects of) interrogatories, and other matters such as, possibly, access to

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1087352

documents produced under subpoena are all determined having regard to the issues as
defined by the pleadings. Clarity in pleading will reduce the room for legitimate dispute
over interlocutory disputes and avoid unnecessary costs.
Fourthly, rulings on evidence will commonly be decided having regard to the issues
defined in the pleadings, and under the adversary system, the rights and obligations of
the parties will ultimately be decided by reference to those issues and not (in the
absence of amendment) by what the judge might think could have been an issue
between them. An example of this is Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical
Corporation13
Thus it can be seen that pleadings are of great importance, and a pleader will generally
do the party whom he or she represents a disservice if he or she does not strive to
properly plead that party's case.
It is here that the significance of ‘cause of action’ comes in as related to pleadings.
Upon sound principles of pleading it is necessary to allege what must be a cause of
action, it is not sufficient to allege that there is a right or an obligation without setting out
the facts giving rise to the right or obligation, and a defendant is entitled to have a
plaintiff's case presented in an intelligible form.
The importance of this lies in the observation of in the case of Homalco14 wherein he
described the statement of claim as an embarrassing pleading, containing much that
was unnecessary, "constructed in a manner calculated to confuse the defendants and to
make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to answer. As a result, it is prejudicial."
Thought the proceeding was stayed in the instant case allowing the filing of a fresh
statement of claim but it is evident that the case was already prejudiced against the
claimant with that observation being brought on record.
It must also be put to note here that a statement of claim must plead the causes of
action in the traditional way so that the defendant may know the case he has to meet to
the end that clear issues of fact and law are presented for the court. The ultimate
function of pleadings is to clearly define the issues of fact and law to be determined by

13
(1984) 156 CLR 41.
14 th
Homalco Indian Band v. British Columbia, (1998), 25 C.P.C. (4 ) 107 (B.C.S.C.).

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1087352

the court. The issues must be defined for each cause of action relied upon by the
plaintiff. That process is begun by the plaintiff stating, for each cause, the material facts,
that is, those facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of
action15. The defendant, upon seeing the case to be met, must then respond to the
plaintiff's allegations in such a way that the court will understand from the pleadings
what issues of fact and law it will be called upon to decide.
A useful description of the proper structure of a plea of a cause of action is set out in
J.H. Koffler and A. Reppy, Handbook of Common Law Pleading,16
“Of course the essential elements of any claim of relief or remedial right
will vary from action to action. But, on analysis, the pleader will find that
the facts prescribed by the substantive law as necessary to constitute a
cause of action in a given case, may be classified under three heads:
(1) The plaintiff's right or title;
(2) The defendant's wrongful act violating that right or title; and
(3) The consequent damage, whether nominal or substantial.
And, of course, the facts constituting the cause of action should be stated
with certainty and precision, and in their natural order, so as to disclose
the three elements essential to every cause of action, to wit, the right, the
wrongful act and the damage.”
If the statement of claim is to serve the ultimate purpose of pleadings, the material facts
of each cause of action relied upon should be set out in the above manner. Further,
they should be stated succinctly and the particulars should follow and should be
identified as such.17 The effect of a pleading, which lacks material facts, may be that it
will be struck out, but in some cases with a right to amend. Faced with such a
situation,18 where there were bare conclusions, but no supporting factual basis for the

15
Troup v. McPherson (1965), 53 W.W.R. 37 (B.C.S.C.) at 39.
16
(St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co., 1969) at p. 85.
17
Gittings v. Caneco Audio-Publishers Inc. (1988), 26 B.C.L.R. (2d) 349 (C.A.) at 353.
18
Kelly Lake Cree Nation v. Canada, [1998] 2 F.C. 270 (T.D.).

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1087352

claim a Canadian judge ruled that the claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of
action.
(ii) Jurisdiction
Cause of action, as stated in the introduction, plays a vital role in the determination of
the jurisdiction of the courts. This is particularly true in the case of even the High Courts
while exercising their extra-ordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. Article 22619, vide Clause (2) states that the maintainability or otherwise of the writ
petition in the High Court depends on whether the cause of action for filing the same
arose, wholly or in part, within the territorial jurisdiction of that Court.
This clause was discussed thread-bare in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Commission
v. Utpal Kumar Busu and Ors.20 which considered at length the question of territorial
jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India. Some of the relevant
observations made in the Judgment are extracted hereunder:
“On a plain reading of the aforesaid two clauses of Article 226 of the
Constitution it becomes clear that a High Court can exercise the power to
issue directions … if the cause of action, wholly or in part, had arisen
within the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction … It is well
settled that the expression "cause of action" means that bundle of facts
which the petitioner must prove, if traversed, to entitle him to a judgment in
his favour by the Court. … Therefore, in determining the objection of lack
of territorial jurisdiction the Court must take all the facts pleaded in support
of the cause of action into consideration albeit without embarking upon an

19
226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs. -
(1) Not withstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have power, throughout the territory
in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in
appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including
writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any
of them, for the enforcement, or any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.
(2) The power conferred by Clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government
authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to
the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such
power, notwithstanding that the seal of such Government or authority or the residence of such
person is not within those territories.
…
20
MANU/SC/0759/1994.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1087352

 enquiry as to the correctness or otherwise of the said facts. In other words
the question whether a High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a
writ petition must be answered on the basis of the averments made in the
petition, the truth or otherwise whereof immaterial. To put it differently, the
question of territorial jurisdiction must be decided on the facts pleaded in
the petition.” (emphasis supplied)
Similarly, Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 vests the jurisdiction to
decide the case in a court where the cause of action arises, wholly or in part. Therefore
the Court where the cause of action however small arises has jurisdiction to hear the
matter. To illustrate, in the matter of contract there can be various instances of cause of
action arising, from making of contract to its breach. So, the suit for breach of contract
may be filed either at a place where it was made or at the place where it should have
been performed and where the breach occurred. But when it was accepted, the suit can
be filed at the place of acceptance of the contract.
In fact accrual of even a part of cause of action is enough. Thus, when A carries on
business in Calcutta and he terminates the appointment of B by a letter posted in
Calcutta but received in Delhi by B, it was held that B has the right to file the suit in
Delhi.21
Thus it is apparent as to how significant the ‘cause of action’ or ‘statement of claim’, by
what ever name it may be called, is for the successful presentation and determination of
a case. This is true in most jurisdictions, as has been explained by the comparative
analysis undertake above and therefore its significance is established conclusively.

IV. NO CAUSE OF ACTION: REJECTION OF PLAINT

The significance of ‘cause of action’ has arisen vastly with the enactment of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 replacing the Code of 1882. Under Section 53 of the 1882 Code,
it was not obligatory on the Court to reject a plaint if it did not disclose any cause of
action. However, under the 1908 Code, it is mandatory on the Court to reject a plaint in
case it does not disclose any cause of action. Order VII Rule 1 provides that “the plaint

21
T.R.S. Mani v. T.R.P. Rao, AIR 1963 Mad. 30.

10

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1087352

shall contain the following particulars: - … the facts constituting the cause of action and
when it arose …”. Thereafter Rule 11 provides that “the plaint shall be rejected in the
following cases:- where it does not disclose a cause of action …” Therefore non
showing of cause of action may lead to the rejection of the plaint at the threshold itself.
However it is to be noted that a plea that there was no cause of action for a suit is
different from the plea that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. In the latter
case, it is the duty of the Court to decide the question before issuing the summons.22
The phrase ‘cause of action' have not been defined in the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908. Nonetheless its meaning is well settled beyond controversy now. In the case of
State of Madras v. C. P. Agencies23, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that ‘cause
of action’ meant "every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, it
traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. It does not comprise
every piece of evidence which is necessary to prove each fact, but every fact which is
necessary to be proved." Similarly, “everything which, if not proved, gives the defendant
an immediate right to judgment, must be part of the cause of action."
Order 7, Rule 11 requires the plaintiff to incorporate in the plaint the facts constituting
the cause of action. Thus, the plaintiff has to plead all material facts upon which his right
to relief is based and from which court can arrive at a conclusion in his favour. Further,
the application of this Rule is not restricted to any particular stage of the suit. The Court
may examine the plaint before admitting the same or at any time thereafter. The
Supreme Court in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal24 emphasized that the Court where
a plaint is presented should exercise the power under Order 7 Rule 11 where on a
meaningful reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of
not disclosing a clear right to sue. In the language of their Lordships, “where the plaint
creates an illusion of the cause of action, it should be nipped in the bud”. Another
principle should also be kept in mind that for rejection of a plaint under Order 7, Rule 11,

22
State of Orissa v. Klockner, AIR 1996 SC 2140.
23
AIR 1960 SC 1309.
24
AIR 1977 SC 2421.

11

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1087352

C.P.C, the Court should examine the plaint and no other material for finding out if the
plaint discloses a cause of action.
In the context of this Rule was a contention that once issues had been framed, the
matter had necessarily to be gone to trial, was clearly rejected by the Supreme Court in
Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi25, observing thus,
"In substance, the argument is that the Court must proceed with the trial,
record the evidence, and only alter the trial … is concluded that the
powers under the CPC for dealing with a defective petition which does not
disclose cause of action should be exercised. With respect to the learned
counsel, it is an argument which it is difficult to comprehend. The whole
purpose of conferment of such powers is to ensure that a litigation which
is meaningless and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to
occupy the time of the Court."
An important case for examination is I.T.C. Limited v. Debts Recovery Appellate
Tribunal and Ors.26 wherein the matter pertained to a commercial contract and the
Appellant was made a defendant in the original plaint. Appellant applied for rejection of
plaint on basis of there being no valid cause of action against him. However the Debt
Recovery Tribunal rejected the application holding that non movement of goods
amounting to fraud was valid cause of action. This rejection was confirmed by High
Court. The Supreme Court found decision of courts below erroneous. It held that the
absence of movement could be to variety of tenable or untenable reasons but non-
movement of goods in question did not amount to fraud. Thus no valid cause of action
existed against appellant .The appeal was consequentially allowed.

V. CONCLUSION

From the above discussion the significance of ‘cause of action’ in legal proceedings and
the implications of its improper representation, are well brought to the fore. A well

25
(1986) Supp. SCC 315.
26
AIR 1998 SC 634.

12

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1087352

drafted pleading essentially would be handicapped from expected outcome if the cause
of action is not disclosed in the manner as to suit the ends of justice as administered by
the court. Therefore it is vital for a draftsman to ensure that the facts stated bring out the
legal claims and appeal to the remedies available.
For whatever functions it may perform and whatever role it may perform as regards
procedural determinations may be concerned, cause of action has a substantive
dimension and that is the accentuation or rather the translation of rights into enforceable
claims. Any discussion may fall short of exhaustively elaborating the extent to which
‘cause of action’ plays a part for obtaining desired relief from court and thus turns into
an avoidable exercise but in should nonetheless be noted here that since every case
requires a successful pleading of grievances as legally addressable wrongs, the need to
bring out a cause of action, one that fits into the given legal regime and brings about the
desired results, is well founded.
Thus it turns an important exercise while drafting pleadings that they are drafted in a
manner that the cause of action is brought out clearly and in a manner such that one
becomes entitled for the relief claimed from the pleading stage itself.

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. A.N. Saha, Code of Civil Procedure, (Eastern Book Company, Lucknow, 2001)
2. J.H. Koffler & A. Reppy, Handbook of Common Law Pleading, (West Publishing
Co., St. Paul, Minnesota, 1969)
3. Mulla, Code proof Civil Procedure, (Butterworth, New Delhi, 2002)
4. Sarkar on Code of Civil Procedure, (Wadhwa & Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2002)

13

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1087352