Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 786 of 2006
PETITIONER:
Om Prakash Srivastava
RESPONDENT:
Union of India and Anr
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/07/2006
BENCH:
ARIJIT PASAYAT & ALTAMAS KABIR
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 282 of 2006)
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Leave granted.
Appellant calls in question legality of the order passed by
a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court disposing of
the Writ Petition (W.P. (Crl.) No.201/2005) filed by the
appellant holding that the Allahabad High Court would have
also jurisdiction to deal with grievances of the writ petitioner
and can deal with conditions of prisoners in that State more
effectively, though the Delhi High Court may have jurisdiction.
Background facts sans unnecessary details are as
follows:
Appellant had filed a Writ Petition before the Delhi High
Court taking the stand that he was being tried in several cases
contrary to the extradition decree. Appellant came to India by
way of extradition from Singapore. Presently, the appellant
was facing trial in eight cases which is in complete violation of
the provisions of Section 21 of the Extradition Act, 1962 (in
short the ’Extradition Act’). He had also pleaded that he was
being kept in solitary confinement without proper medical aid
in the Central Jail in the State of U.P. It is to be noted that the
appellant had filed the Writ Petition (Crl.) No.54 of 2005 before
this Court which was withdrawn by him in order to enable him
to move appropriate High Court for redressal of his grievances,
if any. Appellant had filed a writ petition as afore-noted in the
Delhi High Court which came to be disposed of by the
impugned order.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
choice of the High Court is entirely that of the writ petitioner.
It is not in dispute that in terms of Article 226(2) of the
Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the ’Constitution’) the
appellant could file the writ petition in Delhi High Court.
Merely because he had a choice of going before the Allahabad
High Court, the Delhi High Court should not have refused to
consider the writ petition stating that the Allahabad High
Court can deal with conditions of prisoners in the State of
Uttar Pradesh more effectively. It is submitted that the basic
grievance of the appellant related to alleged violation of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
terms of Extradition Act as provided in Section 21 thereof.
Learned counsel for the Union of India submitted that there is
no violation of any term, practically no part of the cause of
action had arisen in Delhi and the Delhi High Court has
rightly observed that the appellant can pursue his remedy if
any before the Allahabad High Court.
In the present appeal, we are not concerned with the
question whether there is any violation of the terms of
Extradition Act. The only question that needs consideration is
whether the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction to deal with the
matter. The Delhi High Court accepted that it may have
jurisdiction but it was of the view that the grievance can be
more effectively dealt with by the Allahabad High Court.
Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution is of great
importance. It reads as follows:
"(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 seat of such Government or authority or
the residence of such person is not within
those territories."
The question whether or not cause of action wholly or in
part for filing a writ petition has arisen within the territorial
limits of any High Court has to be decided in the light of the
nature and character of the proceedings under Article 226 of
the Constitution. In order to maintain a writ petition a writ
petitioner has to establish that a legal right claimed by him
has prima facie either been infringed or is threatened to be
infringed by the respondent within the territorial limits of the
Court’s jurisdiction and such infringement may take place by
causing him actual injury or threat thereof.
Two clauses of Article 226 of the Constitution on plain
reading give clear indication that the High Court can exercise
power to issue direction, order or writs for the enforcement of
any of the fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the
Constitution or for any other purpose if the cause of action
wholly or in part had arisen within the territories in relation to
which it exercises jurisdiction notwithstanding that the seat of
the Government or authority or the residence of the person
against whom the direction, order or writ is issued is not
within the said territories. (See Oil and Natural Gas
Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu and Ors. (1994 (4) SCC
711).
By "cause of action" it is meant every fact, which, if
traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in
order to support his right to a judgment of the Court. In other
words, a bundle of facts, which it is necessary for the plaintiff
to prove in order to succeed in the suit. (See Bloom Dekor Ltd.
v. Subhash Himatlal Desai and Ors. (1994 (6) SCC 322).
In a generic and wide sense (as in Section 20 of the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908) "cause of action" means every fact,
which it is necessary to establish to support a right to obtain a
judgment. (See Sadanandan Bhadran v. Madhavan Sunil
Kumar (1998 (6) SCC 514).
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
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 plaintiff
a right to claim relief against the defendant. It must include
some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such
an act no cause of action would possibly accrue or would
arise. (See South East Asia Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Nav Bharat
Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and others. (1996 (3) SCC 443).
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 reaction. In the wider sense, it
means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the
suit, including not only the infraction of the right, but also the
infraction coupled with the right itself. Compendiously, as
noted above the expression 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. Every fact,
which is necessary to be proved, as distinguished from every
piece of evidence, which is necessary to prove each fact,
comprises in "cause of action". (See Rajasthan High Court
Advocates’ Association v. Union of India and Ors. (2001 (2)
SCC 294).
The expression "cause of action" has sometimes been
employed to convey the restricted idea of facts or
circumstances which constitute 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, which a plaintiff must prove in order
to succeed. These are all those essential facts without the
proof of which the plaintiff must fail in his suit. (See Gurdit
Singh v. Munsha Singh (1977 (1) SCC 791).
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 of suing; a
factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in
court from another person. (See Black’s Law Dictionary). In
Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary a "cause of action" is stated to be
the entire set of facts that gives rise to an enforceable claim;
the phrase comprises every fact, which if traversed, the
plaintiff must prove in order to obtain 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. (See Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of
Maharashtra and Ors. (2000 (7) SCC 640).
In Halsbury Laws of 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 from earliest time to
include every fact which is material to be
proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed, and
every fact which a defendant would have a
right to traverse. ’Cause of action’ has also
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
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".
As observed by the Privy Council in Payana v. Pana Lana
(1914) 41 IA 142, the rule is directed to securing the
exhaustion of the relief in respect of a cause of action and not
to the inclusion in one and the same action or different causes
of action, even though they arises from the same transaction.
One great criterion is, when the question arises as to whether
the cause of action in the subsequent suit is identical with
that in the first suit whether the same evidence will maintain
both actions. (See Mohammad Khalil Khan v. Mahbub Ali
Mian (AIR 1949 PC 78).
It would be appropriate to quote para 61 of the said
judgment, which reads as follows:-
"61. xxx xxx xxx
(1) The correct test in cases falling under Order
11 Rule 2, is whether the claim in the new suit
is in fact founded upon a cause of action
distinct from that which was the foundation of
the former suit (Moonshee Buzloor Fuheer v.
Shumroonnissa Begum, (1967)11 Moo I 551
(P.C.).
(2) The ’cause of action’ means every fact
which will be necessary for the plaintiff to
prove it tranversed to order to support his
right to the judgment (Real v. Brown (1889) 22
Q.B.O. 138).
(3) If the evidence to support the two claims is
different. (Brunsoon v. Nurnphroy (1984 14
Q.B.O. 141),
(4) The causes of action in the two suits may
be considered to be away if in substance they
are identical (Brunsoon v, Numphroy, supra).
(5) The cause of action has no relation whether
to the defence that may be act up by the
defendant nor does it depend upon the
character of the relief prayed for the plaintiff. It
refers \005\005.. to media upon which the plaintiff
sake the Court to arrive at a conclusion in his
favour. (Mst. Chand Kour v. Pratap Singh
(1887)15 I. A. 185(PC). This observation was
made by Lord Watson in a case under section
43 of the Act of 1882 (corresponding to Order
II, Rule 2) where plaintiff made various claim
in the same. "
In the instant case the High Court has not dealt with the
question as to whether it had jurisdiction to deal with the writ
petition. It only observed that the Delhi High Court may have
jurisdiction, but the issues relating to conditions of prisoners
in the State of U.P. can be more effectively dealt with by the
Allahabad High Court. As noted supra, there were two
grievances by the appellant. But only one of them i.e. the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
alleged lack of medical facilities has been referred to by the
High Court. It was open to the Delhi High Court to say that no
part of the cause of action arose within the territorial
jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. The High Court in the
impugned order does not say so. On the contrary, it says that
jurisdiction may be there, but the Allahabad High Court can
deal with the matter more effectively. That is not certainly a
correct way to deal with the writ petition. Accordingly, we set
aside the impugned order of the High Court and remit the
matter to it for fresh hearing on merits. A prayer has been
made for release of the appellant on parole for the reasons
indicated in the application. We are not inclined to pass any
order on the said application. The same is rejected.
The appeal is disposed of as aforesaid. No costs.