1. Introduction

The concept of 'cause of action' is fundamental to the edifice of civil litigation and writ jurisdiction in India. It is the very foundation upon which a plaintiff or petitioner bases their claim for legal redress. Understanding its contours is crucial, as it determines not only the maintainability of a suit or petition but also pivotal aspects such as territorial jurisdiction, limitation, and the applicability of procedural bars like Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). This article undertakes a comprehensive analysis of the term 'cause of action' as interpreted and applied by the Indian judiciary, drawing extensively from landmark judgments of the Supreme Court and various High Courts. It aims to elucidate the multifaceted nature of this legal doctrine and its practical implications in the administration of justice in India.

2. Defining 'Cause of Action': The Judicial Consensus

The term 'cause of action', though not explicitly defined in the CPC, has been consistently interpreted by Indian courts. It is generally understood as a "bundle of facts" which a plaintiff must prove, if traversed, to entitle him to a judgment in his favour.

The Privy Council in Mohammad Khalil Khan And Others v. Mahbub Ali Mian And Others (1948 AIR PC 78), referencing Read v. Brown (1889), described cause of action as every fact essential for the plaintiff to prove their right to judgment. This foundational understanding has been reiterated in numerous subsequent Indian judgments. For instance, in A.B.C Laminart (P) Ltd. And Another v. A.P Agencies, Salem (1989 SCC 2 163), the Supreme Court defined "cause of action" as every fact necessary for the plaintiff to establish a right to relief. Similarly, in Bloom Dekor Ltd. v. Subhash Himatlal Desai (1994), as cited in Church Of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society v. Ponniamman Educational Trust (2012 SCC 8 706) and Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union Of India And Another (2006 SCC 6 207), it was defined as a bundle of facts essential for obtaining a judgment.

The Supreme Court in Oil And Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu And Others (1994 SCC 4 711) and Dhodha House v. S.K Maingi (2005) reaffirmed that cause of action is a bundle of facts necessary to be proved. The emphasis is on "material facts" or "integral facts" that form the basis for judicial intervention, not mere ancillary or unrelated facts (Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union Of India And Another, 2004 SCC 6 254; Alchemist Ltd. And Another v. State Bank Of Sikkim And Others, 2007 SCC 11 335). The Chhattisgarh High Court in S.K Chaturvedi v. State Of Chhattisgarh & Another (2012), drawing from Black's Law Dictionary and Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, noted that cause of action means a situation or state of facts entitling a party to maintain an action, comprising every fact which, if traversed, the plaintiff must prove.

The Madras High Court in Ex. Rect (Mp) A. Madurai Veeran No. 7779447K v. Union Of India (2005) succinctly stated, "In law, the expression ‘cause of action’ means a bundle of facts which the parties are required to prove, if traversed, to entitle him to a judgment in his favour. It is not the relation whatsoever to the defence which may be set up by the defendant." This was echoed in Lucas TVS v. TVS Logistics Services Ltd (2018), which added that it must include some act done by the defendant. The Allahabad High Court in All India Chess Federation Chennai Thru Honorary Secy. And Anr v. Addl. District Judge Court 9 Lucknow And Others (2023) also defined it as "every fact which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right of the judgment."

3. Territorial Jurisdiction and Cause of Action

The determination of where a part of the cause of action arises is critical for establishing territorial jurisdiction, both for civil suits under Section 20 of the CPC and for writ petitions under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India.

3.1. Section 20, Code of Civil Procedure

Section 20(c) of the CPC allows a suit to be instituted in a court within whose local limits the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. In Patel Roadways Limited, Bombay v. Prasad Trading Company (1991 SCC 4 270), the Supreme Court analyzed the Explanation to Section 20. It held that where a corporation has a subordinate office in a place where the cause of action arises, suits can be filed in that place, and an exclusive jurisdiction clause stipulating the principal office's location cannot oust the jurisdiction of the court where the subordinate office is located and the cause of action arose.

The Supreme Court in A.B.C Laminart (P) Ltd. (1989) dealt with contractual clauses ousting jurisdiction. It held that while parties cannot confer jurisdiction on a court that otherwise lacks it, they can choose one among multiple courts that possess jurisdiction. However, an ouster clause must be explicit (using terms like "exclusive," "only," "sole") and not against public policy (Sections 23 & 28, Indian Contract Act, 1872). The connecting factors for jurisdiction include the place of contract formation, performance, or where money is payable.

In Dhodha House v. S.K Maingi (2005), the Supreme Court reiterated that Section 20 CPC governs suits not covered by Sections 16 to 19, allowing institution where defendants reside or the cause of action arises. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Indian Iron And Steel Co. Ltd., Kolkata v. Tiwari Roadlines, Hyderabad (2005) observed that overall circumstances, the nature of business, and terms between parties must be considered for determining cause of action under Section 20 CPC, and that furnishing a bank guarantee and its invocation could constitute a part of the cause of action.

3.2. Article 226(2) of the Constitution

Article 226(2) empowers a High Court to exercise jurisdiction if the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within its territories, notwithstanding that the seat of Government or authority is outside its territories.

The Supreme Court in Oil And Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu (1994) applied a strict interpretation. It held that the making of a tender from Calcutta or sending communications therefrom did not constitute an integral part of the cause of action when the tender was submitted, evaluated, and rejected in New Delhi. Mere residence or business presence is insufficient. This principle was reinforced in State Of Rajasthan And Others v. M/S Swaika Properties And Another (1985), where land acquisition proceedings initiated and conducted in Rajasthan did not give rise to a cause of action in Calcutta merely because the notice was served on the company at its Calcutta office. The service of notice was not considered an integral part of the cause of action.

In Union Of India And Others v. Adani Exports Ltd. And Another (2002 SCC 1 567), the Supreme Court emphasized that for a High Court to have jurisdiction under Article 226(2), there must be a "substantial nexus" between the cause of action and the court's territory. The mere location of a company's business operations or registered office, absent a direct link to the cause of action, does not confer jurisdiction.

Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union Of India (2004) clarified that the situs of the Parliament or legislature is not the sole determinant for challenging the constitutionality of an Act. Jurisdiction is determined by where the cause of action arises, i.e., where the order/action implementing the law affects the petitioner. The Court also acknowledged the doctrine of forum conveniens, stating that even if a fraction of the cause of action arises within a High Court's jurisdiction, it may decline to entertain the petition if another forum is more appropriate.

This stringent approach was reiterated in Alchemist Ltd. And Another v. State Bank Of Sikkim (2007), where acts like submitting a proposal, depositing funds, or holding negotiations in Chandigarh were not deemed integral to the cause of action concerning a strategic partnership's approval and revocation by the State of Sikkim, which occurred in Sikkim.

In Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union Of India (2006), the Supreme Court remanded a matter where the Delhi High Court had dismissed a writ petition suggesting another High Court might be more efficient, without adequately determining if a part of the cause of action arose in Delhi. Convenience is not the test; the constitutional mandate of territorial nexus is paramount.

The Madras High Court in Ex. Rect (Mp) A. Madurai Veeran (2005) stated that territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 must be decided based on averments in the petition, their truthfulness being immaterial at that stage. The Allahabad High Court in All India Chess Federation (2023) considered whether receipt of communication could form part of the cause of action, referencing Swaika Properties. The Rajasthan High Court in Arun Kumar Gupta v. State Of Rajasthan & Anr. (2010) also affirmed that territorial jurisdiction, even in MACT appeals, is based on where the cause of action (accident) took place.

4. Cause of Action and Rejection of Plaint (Order VII Rule 11 CPC)

Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC mandates the rejection of a plaint if it does not disclose a cause of action. Rule 11(d) provides for rejection if the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.

The Supreme Court in Church Of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society v. Ponniamman Educational Trust (2012) emphasized strict compliance. The plaint must clearly disclose a justiciable cause of action based on its averments. The Court upheld the rejection of a plaint for specific performance where, inter alia, the power of attorney relied upon did not authorize the execution of a sale agreement, thus failing to disclose a valid cause of action against the principal defendant. It also reiterated, citing Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Property and Mayar (H.K) Ltd. v. Vessel M.V Fortune Express, that the defendant's written statement is irrelevant for deciding an Order VII Rule 11 application.

In KULDEEP SINGH PATHANIA v. BIKRAM SINGH JARYAL (2017), the Supreme Court clarified that "so long as the plaint discloses some cause of action which requires determination by the court, the mere fact that in the opinion of the Judge the plaintiff may not succeed cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint." The court should not delve into the correctness of allegations at this stage.

The Karnataka High Court in Smt. P. Vasanthi v. Smt. Vimala Martin And Another (1997), dealing with Order VII Rule 11(d), noted that documents annexed to the plaint, such as an agreement of sale and legal notices, cannot be read in isolation from the plaint averments. The determination of whether a suit is barred by law must appear "from the statement in the plaint."

The Delhi High Court in Rajiv Kumar (Deaf And Dumb) v. Kewal Cargo Carriers (P) Ltd. (2006) distinguished between the absence of pleadings disclosing a cause of action and the absence of full particulars, citing Mohan Rawale (1994).

5. Cause of Action and Bar of Suit (Order II Rule 2 CPC)

Order II Rule 2 of the CPC requires a plaintiff to include the whole of the claim which they are entitled to make in respect of the cause of action in one suit. If a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of their claim, they shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished.

The Privy Council in Mohammad Khalil Khan And Others v. Mahbub Ali Mian And Others (1948) applied this rule strictly. Where plaintiffs claimed properties in Oudh and Shahjahanpur based on the same title (heirship to Rani Barkatunnissa), their failure to include the Shahjahanpur property in the initial suit barred a subsequent suit for it, as the cause of action was deemed singular.

However, the Supreme Court in Bengal Waterproof Limited v. Bombay Waterproof Manufacturing Company And Another (1997 SCC 1 99) held that a second suit for trademark infringement and passing off was not barred by Order II Rule 2. The Court found that ongoing and fresh acts of infringement constituted a new and continuing cause of action, distinct from that in the first suit, which had been dismissed on technicalities. The Court cited Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal (1964) on the requirements to prove the bar under Order II Rule 2.

The Madras High Court in N. Veerappan v. Dr. M. Kandasamy Others (2006) discussed granting permission to withdraw a suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC, which requires formal defects or other sufficient grounds. Similarly, the Orissa High Court in Certificate Officer, Berhanpur And Another v. Kasturi Chand Malu And Another (1969) allowed withdrawal of a suit due to a technical defect (want of notice under Section 80 CPC) with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action.

6. Accrual of Cause of Action and Limitation

The point at which a cause of action accrues is critical for determining the period of limitation for filing a suit or petition.

The Supreme Court in Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited v. Prathyusha Resources And Infra Private Limited And Another (2016 SCC ONLINE SC 138) held that in the context of arbitration, the cause of action arises when the real dispute arises, i.e., "when one party asserts and the other party denies any right."

In insurance matters, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in B.M., Bhartiya Jeevan Bima Nigam & Ors v. Smt.Rama Patel (2016), citing Supreme Court precedents, stated that the cause of action for an insurance claim arises on the date of the incident (e.g., fire, death) and not on the date of repudiation of the claim by the insurance company.

The Armed Forces Tribunal in Ex. Hav. Clerk Amrik Singh v. Uoi & Ors. (2014), dealing with pensionary benefits, recognized the principle of "continuing cause of action," which arises from month to month, impacting how delay is viewed for arrears.

The Bombay High Court in Rajendra v. Harbanssingh (2018 SCC ONLINE BOM 549) considered that the "real trigger" for a cause of action could be when a party's right to enjoy and possess property is unequivocally threatened, such as by steps taken to alienate it.

7. Distinction: Cause of Action versus Evidence and Defence

It is well-established that the cause of action is determined from the averments made in the plaint or petition by the plaintiff/petitioner. The defence raised by the defendant or the evidence to be led is generally not relevant for determining the existence of a cause of action, especially at preliminary stages like an Order VII Rule 11 application.

As noted in Church Of Christ Charitable Trust (2012), citing earlier Supreme Court decisions, the defence in the written statement is irrelevant for evaluating the plaint under Order VII Rule 11. The Madras High Court in Ex. Rect (Mp) A. Madurai Veeran (2005) also stated that the cause of action has no relation to the defence which may be set up. The Supreme Court in KULDEEP SINGH PATHANIA (2017) clarified that a plaint should state material facts, not the evidence by which they are to be proved, except in specific cases like misrepresentation or fraud.

8. Miscellaneous Aspects of Cause of Action

The Karnataka High Court in United Breweries Ltd. 100/1, Ub Anchorage Richmond Road Bangalore v. Khodays Breweries Limited Industries Ltd. (2013) observed that whether a plaint discloses a cause of action is essentially a question of fact, but must be found from a conjoint reading of all paragraphs of the plaint. It also noted that even if a cause of action exists, relief (like perpetual injunction) might be denied due to delay, laches, and acquiescence.

9. Conclusion

The concept of 'cause of action' in Indian law is a dynamic and pivotal legal principle. It is consistently defined as a "bundle of facts" material and integral to the plaintiff's claim, which, if traversed, must be proven to secure a judgment. Judicial pronouncements have meticulously delineated its role in determining territorial jurisdiction under both the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 226 of the Constitution, emphasizing a substantial nexus and cautioning against forum shopping based on peripheral facts. The existence of a disclosed cause of action is a gatekeeper for the maintainability of plaints under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, distinct from the merits or the defendant's case. Furthermore, its proper framing is crucial to avoid the bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC, which mandates the inclusion of the whole claim arising from a single cause of action. The timing of its accrual directly impacts the law of limitation.

Through a consistent line of judicial interpretation, Indian courts have ensured that 'cause of action' serves as a robust tool for organizing litigation, ensuring procedural fairness, and promoting judicial efficiency. Litigants and legal practitioners must, therefore, pay scrupulous attention to the precise articulation and substantiation of the cause of action to navigate the complexities of the Indian legal system effectively.