Back
2007(5) Supreme 513
Supreme Court of India
(From Bombay High Court)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat & Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
Sandeep Polymers Pvt. Ltd. — Petitioner
versus
Bajaj Auto Ltd. and Ors. — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 7749 of 2004
Decided on : 20-07-2007
(2004)3 SCC 137 – Relied upon.
Words and phrases – There is distinction between ‘material facts’ and ‘particulars’. The words ‘material facts’ show that the facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action must be stated. Omission of a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and the statement or plaint becomes bad. The function of ‘particulars’ is quite different. They are not to be used in order to fill material gaps which ought to have been filled by appropriate statements of the various material facts which together constitute the plaintiff’s cause of action. Their function is to fill in the picture of the plaintiff’s cause of action with information sufficiently detailed to put the defendant on his guard as to the case he had to meet and to enable him to prepare for trial. (Para 16)
(1936) 1 KB 697; (1969)3 SCC 238 – Relied upon.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order VII, rule 11 – Notwithstanding the independent remedy to the defendant to challenge the maintainability of the suit, the court is duty bound to reject a plaint suo motu if the same is hit by any of the infirmities provided in the rule. (Para 16)
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 20 – 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. (Para 20)
(2006)6 SCC 207; (1998)6 SCC 514; (1996)3 SCC 443 – Relied upon.
Words ad phrases – Cause of action – 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, the expression means 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”. (Para 21)
(2001)2 SCC 294; (1977)1 SCC 791; (2000)7 SCC 640 – Relied upon.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order II, rule 2 – If the evidence to support the two claims is different, then the causes of action are also different – Instantly, contract signed at Nagpur and the purchase orders specifically acquiescing to jurisdiction of Pune court but the suit filed at Nagpur for all claims – Appeal disposed of with liberty to the appellant to file a separate suit in relation to the purchase orders and other directions. (Para 27)
AIR 1949 PC 78 – Relied upon .
Facts of the case :
The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court held that as part of the claim in the plaint was outside its jurisdiction, it had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. Accordingly it directed the trial court to return the plait in accordance with Order VII, rule 10-A, CPC. This order is under challenge.
Findings of the Court :
Contract having been signed at Nagpur and the purchase orders specifically acquiescing to jurisdiction of Pune court constitute two causes of action.
Result : Appeal disposed of with Liberty to the appellant to file a separate suit in relation to the purchase orders and amend the suit.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The court emphasized that when supporting evidence for two claims differs, the causes of action are considered different (!) (!) .
The judgment clarified that the causes of action are distinct if the facts supporting each claim are different, and this difference affects jurisdiction and the ability to file separate suits (!) (!) .
It was noted that the entire cause of action must be pleaded comprehensively; partial claims or omission of material facts can lead to an incomplete or defective cause of action (!) (!) .
The legal distinction between material facts and particulars was highlighted: material facts are essential to establish the cause of action, whereas particulars serve to inform the defendant and fill in details, but do not constitute the cause itself (!) (!) .
The court reaffirmed that the statutory provisions allow for the rejection of a plaint if it is found to be defective under specific procedural rules, even suo motu by the court (!) .
The concept of "cause of action" was described as a bundle of facts necessary to support the right to sue, including any act done by the defendant that gives rise to the claim (!) (!) .
It was clarified that causes of action can be both narrow (immediate infringement of rights) and broad (conditions necessary for maintaining the suit), and every fact needed to support the claim must be proved (!) (!) .
The importance of including all relevant facts and claims in a single suit was stressed, and the law permits separate suits if causes of action are genuinely different, especially when supported by different evidence (!) (!) .
The court discussed procedural rules that facilitate the rejection or striking out of pleadings that are frivolous, scandalous, or an abuse of process, emphasizing that such actions are meant to prevent irresponsible litigation (!) (!) .
The legal requirement for pleadings to state material facts—necessary to establish a complete cause of action—is fundamental; omission of any such fact can render the claim invalid (!) (!) .
The distinction between material facts and particulars was reinforced: material facts are essential to establish the cause of action, while particulars are detailed information to inform the defendant and facilitate trial (!) (!) .
The legal principles support the filing of separate suits for causes of action that are different in nature, especially when supported by different sets of evidence or arising from different facts (!) (!) .
The court provided directions that a party may file a separate suit for causes of action related to specific claims, and amendments can be made to the existing plaint to clarify or separate claims (!) (!) .
Overall, the judgment underscores the importance of clear, complete pleadings that accurately reflect the entire cause of action, while also recognizing procedural mechanisms to address fragmented or incomplete claims (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further elaboration or specific legal advice based on these points.
JUDGMENT
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.—
1.Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, directing return of the plaint, as according to the High Court the Court at Nagpur had no jurisdiction to entertain a part of the claims made in the suit. The plaintiff was granted liberty to represent the plaint in the Court having jurisdiction at Pune. The trial Court was directed to follow the procedure under Order 7 Rule 10-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the ‘CPC’) for return of the plaint to the plaintiff.
2.Background facts in a nutshell are as follows :
“The appellant filed a special civil suit No.881/91 for recovery of Rs.79,63,99,736/- as damages for breach of contract. The stand of the plaintiff in the plaint was that it is the manufacturer of moulds and high precision plastic component for the industrial application specially for use by automobile industry. It has its manufacturing operations at Nagpur and the defendants have entered into an agreement with it for lifetime supply of its products. it has made huge investments at Nagpur amounting to rupees thirty crores and that it has a most sophisticated factory at Nagpur. Plaintiff is supplying its products to the Defendant No.1 for almost two decades. The defendant no.1 vide registered letter dated 03.11.1999, which was received by the plaintiff at its Nagpur office on 11.11.1999, has terminated its agreement with the plaintiff. Due to the said termination, the machineries which were installed by the plaintiff specifically for manufacturing moulds for the defendant No.1 would remain idle and that there will be no use of its unit installed at Nagpur. The plaintiff, therefore, contended that it is entitled to compensation of damages inasmuch, as the defendant No.1’s action of refusing to honour its promise and assurance was illegal and arbitrary.
The defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 filed an application under Section 9A read with Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC submitting therein that the suit was clearly abuse of process of law and was not maintainable. The registered office of defendants 1 and 2 was at Pune and that the defendant Nos.3 and 4 are the residents of Pune, whereas the defendant No.5 has its registered office at Tokyo (Japan). The lease agreements between defendant No.1 and the plaintiff had been executed at Pune, and supplies were made by the plaintiff to defendant No.1 at Pune/Aurangabad, i.e. outside the territorial jurisdiction of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur and, therefore, it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the suit deserves to be dismissed summarily. It was denied by the respondents-defendants that the plaintiff has set up its factory at Nagpur at the instance of defendant No.1. It was further contended that the plaintiff has deliberately suppressed the fact that it has its registered office at Mumbai and neither of the parties to the suit resided at Nagpur. The respondents further averred in the said application that the parties by consent have restricted the jurisdiction to Pune Court only. The said term pertaining to jurisdiction is contained in all the purchase orders placed by defendant No.1 with the plaintiff. Plaintiff had deliberately filed a part of the purchase order and suppressed that part of the purchase order from the Court which contained the clause regarding jurisdiction.
The non-applicant/plaintiff filed its reply to the said application reiterating the averments made in the plaint. It reiterated that it had made huge investments at Nagpur on the assurance made by the defendant No.1. The plaintiff, further, submitted in its reply that the cause of action for suit has arisen substantially, if not wholly, within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Court at Nagpur. Goods were supplied from Nagpur and the cost thereof is received at Nagpur and that the goods have also been delivered at Nagpur. Substantial part of the claims in the plaint was on ac
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
