Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Repeated Representation and Cause of Action - Repeated submissions of representations regarding a stale or dead claim do not create a fresh cause of action. The law is settled that the dead cause of action cannot rise like a phoenix and that mere submission of representation does not arrest time or revive a barred claim ["Smt. Latha K N@ Latha @ C Latha vs THE UNION OF INDIA - Central Administrative Tribunal"]. Similarly, courts have emphasized that even if a court or tribunal considers such representations, it does not generate a new cause of action, nor does it revive a time-barred claim ["Hembati D/O Shri Kamal Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh"], ["M/S Avni Construction A Proprietorship Firm Through Its Proprietor Ajay Kumar Jain vs Nagar Palika Parishad Guna - Madhya Pradesh"], ["CHUNNU Vs DELHI URBAN SHELTER IMPROVEMENT BOARD - Delhi"], ["Gopal Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh"], ["O.P. SAXENA vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR AND OTHERS - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Avirineni Jhansi Lakshmi vs M/s Vijayalakshmi 70 MM - Telangana"].
Effect of Court or Tribunal Directions - Directions by courts or tribunals to consider representations related to stale or dead claims do not constitute a fresh cause of action. The Supreme Court has clarified that the date of such decision cannot be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the 'dead' issue or time-barred dispute ["Hembati D/O Shri Kamal Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh"], ["M/S Avni Construction A Proprietorship Firm Through Its Proprietor Ajay Kumar Jain vs Nagar Palika Parishad Guna - Madhya Pradesh"], ["CHUNNU Vs DELHI URBAN SHELTER IMPROVEMENT BOARD - Delhi"]. This principle holds even when the court directs consideration of representations; the original cause of action remains the basis for limitation calculations.
Limitation and Cause of Action - The cause of action generally arises at the time of the initial breach or failure, not upon subsequent rejection or consideration of representations. For instance, in cases involving delay or limitation, the cause of action is deemed to have arisen at the earliest point of the breach, and subsequent representations or decisions do not extend the limitation period ["Hembati D/O Shri Kamal Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh"], ["M/S Avni Construction A Proprietorship Firm Through Its Proprietor Ajay Kumar Jain vs Nagar Palika Parishad Guna - Madhya Pradesh"], ["O.P. SAXENA vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR AND OTHERS - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Avirineni Jhansi Lakshmi vs M/s Vijayalakshmi 70 MM - Telangana"]. The courts have consistently held that repeated representations will not extend the period of limitation and do not create a new cause of action ["Supreme Industries Limited VS Ankit Goel Trading As Goel Trading Company - Delhi"], ["Janak Kumari Sood VS Delhi Development Authority - Delhi"].
Special Case of Recurring Causes - In some contexts, such as infringement of trademarks, each act of infringement can give rise to a new cause of action, as it is considered recurring and continuous ["Supreme Industries Limited VS Ankit Goel Trading As Goel Trading Company - Delhi"]. However, this principle is specific to certain legal rights and does not apply broadly to claims related to stale or dead grievances.
Conclusion - The overarching legal principle is that the dead cause of action cannot rise like a phoenix, and repeated representations or directions to consider old claims do not generate a new cause of action. Limitation periods are anchored to the original cause of action, and subsequent attempts to revive stale claims through representations or court directions are ineffective in creating fresh causes of action ["Smt. Latha K N@ Latha @ C Latha vs THE UNION OF INDIA - Central Administrative Tribunal"], ["Hembati D/O Shri Kamal Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh"], ["M/S Avni Construction A Proprietorship Firm Through Its Proprietor Ajay Kumar Jain vs Nagar Palika Parishad Guna - Madhya Pradesh"], ["CHUNNU Vs DELHI URBAN SHELTER IMPROVEMENT BOARD - Delhi"], ["Gopal Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh"], ["O.P. SAXENA vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR AND OTHERS - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Avirineni Jhansi Lakshmi vs M/s Vijayalakshmi 70 MM - Telangana"].
In legal disputes, particularly those involving service matters, pensions, or administrative claims, parties often submit multiple representations hoping to revive old grievances. A common question arises: repeated representation cannot give rise to fresh cause of action for filing suit. Can repeated letters, appeals, or communications to authorities reset the clock on limitation periods or breathe new life into barred claims? Generally, the answer is no. Indian courts, including the Supreme Court, have consistently ruled that such actions do not create a new cause of action or extend limitation periods. This principle protects legal finality and prevents abuse of process.
This blog post explores the legal position, drawing from landmark judgments, key principles of limitation, delay, and laches, and practical recommendations. Note: This is general information based on judicial precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Repeated representations or communications by a party, especially when they relate to stale or time-barred claims, do not generally constitute a fresh cause of action for filing a suit or revive a dead or barred claim. C. Jacob VS Director of Geology & Mining - 2008 7 Supreme 331Vikram Singh VS State Of U. P. - 2018 0 Supreme(All) 2244
The rationale is straightforward: the cause of action accrues from the original denial of the claim or a threat to deny it. Subsequent representations are procedural and do not alter this accrual date. A. T. Zambre VS Kartar Krishna Shashtri - 1980 0 Supreme(SC) 526
Courts have emphasized several core points:
For instance, in State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamurthy, the Supreme Court held: Rejection of stale or time barred representation or reply to representation unrelated to the department etc. cannot give rise to fresh cause of action to revive a stale or dead claim. C. Jacob VS Director of Geology & Mining - 2008 7 Supreme 331
Similarly, Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar clarified: The issue of delay/laches/limitation should be considered with reference to the original cause of action. Vikram Singh VS State Of U. P. - 2018 0 Supreme(All) 2244
Legal principles across judgments underscore that stale claims cannot be revived through persistence. In one case, even court directions to consider representations on a stale claim or dead grievance do not give rise to a fresh cause of action. The dead cause of action cannot rise like a phoenix. Meena Devi VS HP State Electricity Board Ltd. - 2023 Supreme(HP) 376
This was echoed in a maternity leave termination dispute where the petitioner approached court after 15 years. The court dismissed the petition, noting: when belatedly representation in regard to a stale or dead claim is considered and decided in compliance to directions of Court/Tribunal... date of such decision cannot be considered as furnishing afresh cause of action. Meena Devi VS HP State Electricity Board Ltd. - 2023 Supreme(HP) 376
Writ courts under Article 226 often direct authorities to consider representations, but this is procedural. In the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules case, such directions do not revive barred claims: the direction to ‘consider’ a representation relating to a stale issue resulting in the Writ Court dealing with the matter as if it was a live claim. C. Jacob VS Director of Geology & Mining - 2008 7 Supreme 331
Delay defeats equity in extraordinary jurisdiction: While exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution; delay defeats equity and delay cannot be brushed aside without any plausible explanation. Meena Devi VS HP State Electricity Board Ltd. - 2023 Supreme(HP) 376
The S.S. Rathore case clarifies: The cause of action shall be taken to arise not from the date of the original adverse order but on the date when the order of the higher authority where a statutory remedy is provided entertaining the appeal or representation is made. However, endless repetitions do not extend this. A. T. Zambre VS Kartar Krishna Shashtri - 1980 0 Supreme(SC) 526
In pay scale disputes, courts reiterate: It is settled law that repeated representations will not extend the period of limitation and merely because the petitioner kept on making fresh representations and the respondent/employer rejecting the same, no fresh cause of action will accrue. Balwan Singh vs Indian Institute of TechnologyBalwan Singh VS Indian Institute of Technology - 2017 Supreme(Del) 440
A selection ante-dating case dismissed a 2017 petition due to delay from 2000: repeated representations did not extend limitation, citing State of Orissa v. Mamta Mohanty. Balwan Singh VS Indian Institute of Technology - 2017 Supreme(Del) 440
Exceptions are narrow:- Representations within the limitation period on live claims may be relevant, but consideration alone doesn't revive anything. C. Jacob VS Director of Geology & Mining - 2008 7 Supreme 331- Recurring causes (e.g., monthly pay) might differ, but repeated rejections don't create new ones. Balwan Singh vs Indian Institute of Technology- Final judgments bar relitigation via res judicata or estoppel. Satyendra Kumar VS Raj Nath Dubey - 2016 3 Supreme 357
One case noted a rejection without reasons potentially giving a fresh cause within three years, but this is contextual and not the norm for stale claims. Tasty Food Products vs Secretary, Orissa State Council for Child Welfare - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 6222
Vexatious suits based on old facts are rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC: A civil suit must disclose a valid cause of action; submission of frivolous claims to prolong litigation is impermissible. Dhananjay Shivram Mapare vs Vilas Eknath Kapre - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 1586
In partition suits, re-agitating settled issues via new suits is abuse of process. Sarjerao Dhondiba Sarode VS Kamal Kerubhau Pachange - 2018 Supreme(Bom) 311
Repeated representations on stale or barred claims do not, generally, give rise to a fresh cause of action. They neither revive dead claims nor extend limitation periods, as affirmed in cases like State of Tamil Nadu v. P. KrishnamurthyC. Jacob VS Director of Geology & Mining - 2008 7 Supreme 331 and Union of India v. M.K. SarkarVikram Singh VS State Of U. P. - 2018 0 Supreme(All) 2244. Principles of delay, laches, and legal finality prevail.
Key Takeaways:- Act promptly on original causes.- Representations are not substitutes for timely suits.- Exceptions require live claims or statutory provisions.
For tailored advice, consult a legal professional. Stay informed to avoid procedural pitfalls.
rise to a fresh cause of action. ... At present it is the settled law that repeated representations will not keep the issues alive. The dead cause of action cannot rise like a phoenix. Similarly, a mere submission of representation to the competent authority does not arrest time. ... From the aforesaid authorities, it is clear as crystal that even if the court or tribunal directs for consideration of representation....
From the aforesaid authorities it is clear as crystal that even if the court or tribunal directs for consideration of representations relating to a stale claim or dead grievance it does not give rise to a fresh cause of action. The dead cause of action cannot rise like a phoenix. ... rise to new cause of action. ... Thus, it is clear that even if any direction is given by the Cou....
The amount became due for the first time in the year 2013, therefore, the suit should have been filed by 2015. Repeated representations would not give rise to a fresh cause of action. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal v. ... From the aforesaid authorities it is clear as crystal that even if the court or tribunal directs for consideration of representations relating to a stale claim or dead grievance it does not give rise....
From the aforesaid authorities it is clear as crystal that even if the court or tribunal directs for consideration of representations relating to a stale claim or dead grievance it does not give rise to a fresh cause of action. The dead cause of action cannot rise like a phoenix. ... The claim of inclusion in the panel had become stale by that time and filing of representation will not g....
trade mark which gives rise to a recurring and fresh cause of action each time. ... The impugned order has been passed without appreciating the position of law that infringement of a trademark/passing off, shall give rise to a fresh cause of action in favour of the aggrieved party. ... Thus, the use of a fresh infringing mark, gave rise to a fresh cause of #HL_S....
This gives rise to a fresh cause of action and the suit having admittedly been filed within three years thereafter i.e., 12.11.2010 cannot be treated as barred by limitation. 13. Per contra, Mr. D. ... This amounts to giving rise to a fresh cause of action. Admittedly, the claim of the plaintiff was considered and rejected on 22.11.2007 without citing any reason and the suit was filed on 12.11.201....
From the aforesaid authorities it is clear as crystal that even if the court or tribunal directs for consideration of representations relating to a stale claim or dead grievance it does not give rise to a fresh cause of action. The dead cause of action cannot rise like a phoenix. ... Therefore, filing of the present writ petition in 2011 only on the ground that on a fresh representation....
Alleged discovery of something which could have been a defence in previous round of litigation cannot give rise to a cause of action for filing a fresh suit seeking declaration that the decree is nullity. ... Alleged acquisition of knowledge by the Respondents in April 2017 of alienation of some of the properties by Shivram cannot give rise to any cause of action#HL_END....
In a case like at hand, getting a particular pay scale may give rise to a recurring cause of action. ... It is settled law that repeated representations will not extend the period of limitation and merely because the petitioner kept on making fresh representations and the respondent/employer rejecting the same, no fresh cause of action will accrue. ... The cause of action accrued for the first tim....
In a case like at hand, getting a particular pay scale may give rise to a recurring cause of action. ... It is settled law that repeated representations will not extend the period of limitation and merely because the petitioner kept on making fresh representations and the respondent/employer rejecting the same, no fresh cause of action will accrue. ... The cause of action accrued for the first tim....
The suit will be liable to be dismissed, if it is filed beyond the limitation from the day when right to sue first accrued to the plaintiff. This would mean that if the suit is based on multiple causes of action, the period of limitation will begin to run from the date when the right to sue first accrued. To put it differently, successive violation of the right will not give rise to fresh cause of action for filing the suit.
Hence those facts cannot now give rise to fresh cause of action. As regards the bundle of other material facts which according to them, constitute the cause of action for filing this suit, those are the facts same which were pleaded in the earlier suit, by their father, about there being no partition in the year 1958.
According to us, the petitioner is a person who is not vigilant of his rights and has acquiesced with the situation from 2002 to 2014 i.e. almost for a period of 12 years and we do not feel that we should exercise our extraordinary and discretionary writ jurisdiction to help the tardy and indolent / lethargic litigant like the petitioner. However, according to us, the repeated representation did not give a fresh cause of action to the petitioner and mere making of representation cannot justify his belated approach. The petitioner has referred to various representations and ....
The petitioner did not challenge the order, dated 22.2.2000, rejecting the request of the petitioner to approve his appointment w.e.f. 01.06.1996. 6. The learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 3 has submitted that filing of repeated representation will not give fresh cause of action. When the petitioner's representation was not favourably considered, the petitioner ought to have agitated at that time itself.
Court for filing fresh suit on the same cause of action? E.Is it that resolution dt.18.2.1989 pertains to the subject property for the reasons that it does not specify the property and there is no evidence of connecting the plot No.3 B-Block to the subject property resulting suit has not been properly instituted? F. Is it not that the impugned order is without jurisdiction as the ld. E.Is it that resolution dt.18.2.1989 pertains to the subject property for the reasons that it does not specify the property and there is no evidence of connecting the plot No.3 B-Block to the s....
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
