Holding

The expression "cause of action" includes the factual circumstances giving rise to a right of relief, and the High Court must re‑examine jurisdictional facts before allowing transfer under Section 24 CPC.

Summary

In Civil Appeal No. 4110 of 2007, the Supreme Court examined the High Court's order allowing a transfer petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, moving a suit from the District Court, Kanyakumari to the Family Court, Chennai. The appellant contended that the transfer was improper because the "cause of action" did not arise within the jurisdiction of the Chennai court. Relying on the earlier decision in Y. Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police, the Court clarified that the expression "cause of action" has a settled judicial meaning encompassing the factual circumstances that give rise to a right of relief, and that this meaning applies equally in criminal matters where jurisdiction is linked to the place of the offence under Section 177 of the CrPC. The Court held that the High Court must reconsider whether any part of the cause of action fell within its jurisdiction before permitting the transfer. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court correctly exercised its jurisdiction in allowing the transfer of the suit under Section 24 CPC.
What is the precise legal meaning of "cause of action" for determining jurisdiction, especially in the context of criminal matters.
Whether any part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Chennai Family Court.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 24
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 177, s. 178(c)

Subjects

cause of actionjurisdictiontransfer of suitSection 24 CPCcivil procedurecriminal procedureinterpretationHigh CourtSupreme Court

Judgment

A Y.A.AilT
v.
.
).

SOFANAAJIT

SEPTEMBER 7, 2007

B (DRARIJITPASAYAT ANDS.H.KAPADIA,JJ.)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: s.24-Transfer petition-Allowed by
High Court-On appeal, held: High Court to reconsider the matter.

C Words and Phrases: Expression 'cause of action'-Meaning of

In the present appeal, the appellant is challenging the order of High
Court allowing the transfer petitions filed by respondent in terms of s.24 Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908.

D Disposing of the appeal, the Court

HELD: I.I. While in civil cases, normally the expression "cause of
action" is used, in criminal cases as stated in s.177 Cr.P.C., reference is to
the local jurisdiction where the offence is committed. These variations in
E etymological expression do not really make the position different.
!Para 4) (8ll•A)

1.2. The expression "cause of action" has acquired 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.
In the wider sense, it means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of
F the proceeding including not only the alleged infraction, but also the infraction
coupled with the right itself. Compendiously the expression means every fact,
which it would be necessary for the complainant to prove, if traversed, in order
to support his right or grievance to the judgment of the Court. Every fact,
which is necessary to be proved, as distinguished from every piece of evidence,
G which is necessary to prove such fact, comprises in "cause of action". The
expression "cause of action" is generally understood to mean a situation or
state of facts that entitles a party to maintain an action in a court or a tribunal;
a group of operative facts giving rise to one or more bases for sitting; a factual
situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in court from another
person. In view of this, it is appropriate for the High Court to re-consider the
II 808
Y.A.AJITv.SOFANAAJIT[PASAYAT,J.] 809
matter. [Para 4 and 7) [811-D-G; 812-E) A
Y. Abraham Ajith and Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Anr.,
[2004) 8 sec 100, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4110 of2007.
B
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.06.2004 of the High Court of
Judicature at Madras in Transfer C.M.P. No. 12279 of 2004.

T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, Krishnan Nandakumar and T.G. Narayanan Nair for
the Appellant.

V.N. Raghupathy for the Respondent:
c
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR.ARIJIT PASAYAT,J. l. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the legality of judgment rendered by D
a learned Single Judge of the Madas High Court allowing the transfer petition
filed by the respondent in terms of Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (in short the 'CPC'). By the transfer petition the respondent had sought
for transfer of IDOP No.46 of 2003 pending in the Court of District Judge,
Kanyakumari at Nagercoil to the Court of Family Judge, Chennai. The High E
Court accepted the prayer.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that between the parties
there was an earlier proceeding which came before this Court in Y. Abraham
Ajith and Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Anr., [2004] 8 SCC JOO.
It is submitted that in view of what has been stated in the said case the F
impugned order cannot be maintained. Learned counsel for the respondent on
the other hand supported the order of the High Court.

4. In Y. Abraham Ajith's case (supra) it was, inter alia, observed as
follows:
G
"All crime is local, the jurisdiction over the crime belongs to the
country where the crime is committed", as observed by Blackstone.
A significant word used in Section 177 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') is "ordinarily". Use of the word
indicates that the provision is a general one and must be read subject H
810 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 9 S.C.R.

A to the special provisions contained in the Code. As observed by the
Court in Purushottamdas Dalmia v. State of West Bengal, AIR (1961)
SC 1589, L.N.Mukherjee v. State of Madras, AIR (1961) SC 1601,
Banwarilal Jhunjhunwalla and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr., AIR
( 1963) SC 1620 and Mohan Baitha and Ors. v. State ofBihar and Anr.,
[2001) 4 SCC 350, exception implied by the word "ordinarily" need not
B be limited to those specially provided for by the law and exceptions
may be provided by law on consideration or may be implied from the
provisions of law permitting joint trial of offences by the same Court.
No such exception is applicable to the case at hand.

As observed by this Court in State of Bihar v. Deokaran Nenshi
c and Anr., AIR (1973) SC 908, continuing offence is one which is
susceptible of continuance and is distinguishable from the one which
is committed once and for all, that it is one of those offences which
arises out of the failure to obey or comply with a rule or its requirement
and which involves a penalty, liability continues till compliance, that
D on every occasion such disobedience or non-compliance occurs or
recurs, there is the offence committed.

A similar plea relating to continuance of the offence was examined
by this Court in Sujata Mukherjee (Smt.) v. Prashant Kumar
Mukherjee, [1997) 5 SCC 30. There the allegations related to commission
E of alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 and 323 IPC.
On the factual background, it was noted that though the dowry
demands were made earlier, the husband of the complainant went to
the place where complainant was residing and had assaulted her. This
Court held in that factual background that clause (c) of Section 178
was attracted. But in the present case the factual position is different
F and the complainant herselfleft the house of the husband on 15.4.1997
on account of alleged dowry demands by the husband and his relations.
There is thereafter not even a whisper of allegations about any demand
of dowry or commission of any act ~onstituting an offence much less
at Chennai. That being so, the logic of Section 178 (c) of the Code
G relating to continuance of the offences cannot be applied.

The crucial question is whether any part of the cause of action
arose within the jurisdiction of the concerned Court. In terms of
Section 177 of the Code it is the place where the offence was committed.
ln essence it is the cause of action for initiation of the proceedings
H against the accused.
Y.A.AJITv. SOFANAAJIT[PASAYAT,J.] 811
While in civil cases, nonnally the expression "cause of action" is A
used, in criminal cases as stated in Section 177 of the Code, reference
is to the local jurisdiction where the offence is committed. These
variations in etymological expression do not really make the position
different. The expression "cause of action" is therefore not a stranger
to criminal cases.
B
It is settled law that cause of action consists of bundle of facts,
which give cause to enforce the legal inquiry for redress in a court
of law. In other words, it is a bundle of facts, which taken with the
law applicable to them, gives the allegedly affected party a right to
claim relief against the opponent. It must include some act done by C
the latter since in the absence of such an act no cause of action would
possibly accrue or would arise.

The expression "cause of action" has acquired a judicially settled
meaning. In the restricted sense cause of action means the
circumstances fonning the infraction of the right or the immediate D
occasion for the action. In the wider sense, it means the necessary
conditions for the maintenance of the proceeding including not only
the alleged infraction, but also the infraction coupled with the right
itself. Compendiously the expression means every fact, which it would
be necessary for the complainant to prove, if traversed, in order to
support his right or grievance to the judgment of the Court. Every E
fact, which is necessary to be proved, as distinguished from every
piece of evidence, which is necessary to prove such fact, comprises
in "cause of action".

The expression "cause of action" has sometimes been employed
to convey the restricted idea of facts or circumstances which constitute F
either the infringement or the basis of a right and no more. In a wider
and more comprehensive sense, it has been used to denote the whole
bundle of material facts.

The expression "cause of action" is generally understood to mean
a situation or state of facts that entitles a party to maintain an action G
in a court or a tribunal; a group of operative facts giving rise to one
or more bases for sitting; a factual situation that entitles one person
to obtain a remedy in court from another person. (Black's Law
Dictionary a "cause of action" is stated to be the entire set of facts
that gives rise to an enforceable clai~; the phrase comprises every H
812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 9 S.C.R.

A fact, which, if traversed, the .plaintiff.must prove in .order to obtain )c;
judgment. In "Words .and Phrases".(4th .Edn.) .the -meaning attributed
to the phrase "cause of action" in common legal,parlance .is,existence
of those facts, which give a party a right to judicial interference on
his behalf.

B 5. In HaJsbury Laws 6f England (Fourth Edition) it'has been stated as
follows:

"Cause of action" has 'been defined as meaning simply a factual
situation the existence of which entitles one,person to obtain from the
Court a remedy against another person. The phrase has .been held
c from earliest time to include every fact which is material to be proved
to entitle the plaintiff to succeei:I, and every fact which a defendant
would have a right to traverse. "Cause of action" has also been taken
to mean that particular act on the part of the defendant which gives
the plaintiff his cause of complaint, or the subject matter of grievance
founding the action, not merely the technical cause of action".
D
6. No doubt'the decision was rendered'in'the'background of the Code, ;......
they have relevance so far as the ·present dispute is concerned.

7. In view of what has been stated in'the aforesaid.case, it would be
E appropriate for ·the High ·Court ·to ·re-consider the matter. The appeal is
accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs.

D.G. i\ppeal disposed Oismissed of.