Skip to main content

Cause of Action in a Suit

 Cause of Action in a Suit


  • Cause of Action refers to a set of circumstances which leads to a suit. In court, it means every fact which is necessary for the plaintiff to entitle him to a decree in the suit. In other words, it is the material upon which the plaintiff has asked the court to arrive at a decision in his favour. 

  • There is no statute defining cause of action, it has been judicially interpreted. 

  • Every claim must disclose a Cause of Action, if it does not it is the duty of the court to reject the plaint (Order 7 Rule 11). 

  • Transaction is basically the setting under which the parties interact with one another to form a certain relationship, where there may be a breach causing damage to the other party i.e. the Cause of Action. Therefore, while selecting parties one has to refer to the transaction but jurisdiction based on Cause of Action, the breach needs to be understood. 

  • Order II Rule 2: An act or transaction may give rise to one Cause of Action or it may give rise to multiple Cause of Actions. Where there are multiple Cause of Actions, one can bring a separate suit in respect of each distinct and separable Cause of Action though they may arise from the same transaction. But one cannot split a Cause of Action to bring multiple suits in respect of the same Cause of Action. 

  • Joinder of Causes: When the cause of actions arise out of the same transaction. Rule 5 of Order II prohibits the joinder of claim against an executor, administrator or legal heir, unless the claim is in relation to the transaction in question and not personally against the executor, administrator or legal heir.

  • One plaintiff, one defendant, multiple Cause of Actions: The plaintiff is at the liberty to unite the same suit with multiple Cause of Actions against the defendant under Order II Rule 3.If the Cause of Actions are disconnected in such a manner that they cannot be conveniently tried together, the Court may order separate trials (Order II Rule 6).  

  • Multiple plaintiffs, one defendant, multiple Cause of Actions: When there are two or more plaintiffs and the Cause of Actions are separate but they seek a common relief and a common question of law or fact arises, then they can be joined in a single suit. Here, the subject matter of the transaction and the relief sought should be identical and the question of law should be the same (Order II Rule 3). 

  • One plaintiff, multiple defendants, multiple Cause of Actions: In case of multiple defendants and Cause of Actions, plaintiff can unite them in same suit if it is against the same defendants. The transaction should be identical, the question of law should be the same and the subject matter of transaction should be the same. Furthermore, all the Cause of Actions should be related to the defendants. To determine the same following points are taken into consideration: 1. Same transaction 2. Common questions of law or fact 3. Defendants should also be interested in the common question jointly. 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more