Holding

The Chief Justice of a High Court does not have legislative competence to define the cause of action for territorial jurisdiction, making the explanation in the Acting Chief Justice's order ultra vires.

Summary

The President, under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, established a permanent bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur and defined its territorial jurisdiction over eleven districts, while retaining a discretionary power to transfer cases to the principal seat at Jodhpur. The Acting Chief Justice later issued an order and an explanation stating that a writ case would be deemed to arise in the district where the first order was passed, later amended to where the cause of action arose, thereby attempting to fix jurisdiction administratively. The Rajasthan High Court struck down this explanation as ultra vires, and the matter was appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court examined whether the Chief Justice possessed legislative authority to define the cause of action for jurisdictional purposes under Sections 44 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 and Sections 54 and 57 of the States Reorganisation Act. It held that such power is not conferred on the Chief Justice; jurisdiction must be determined case‑by‑case by the judge based on the district where the cause of action arises, and any blanket explanation pre‑empts judicial determination and is therefore invalid. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the High Court’s order upheld.

Issues considered

The Chief Justice of a High Court has the authority to define the cause of action for determining territorial jurisdiction of a permanent bench.
Whether the explanation issued by the Acting Chief Justice is ultra vires of the Presidential Order and the statutory provisions.
Interpretation of Sections 44 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 and Sections 54, 57 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 with respect to the Chief Justice's powers.
Whether jurisdiction of a permanent bench can be altered by an administrative order rather than by judicial determination.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 226
Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949s. 44(2)
States Reorganisation Act, 1956s. 10, s. 49, s. 51(1), s. 51(2), s. 54, s. 57

Subjects

territorial jurisdictioncause of actionhigh court benchstates reorganisation actarticle 226ultra viresadministrative powerpermanent benchjurisdictional bifurcation

Judgment

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

DECEMBER I 5, 2000

[R.C. LAHOTI ANDSHIVARAJ V. PATIL] B

Practice and Procedure:

Acting Chief Justice of a High Court issuing an order defining where
the cause of action shall be deemed to have arisen in writ case-Tenability C
of-Held, the Chief Justice of the High Court has not been conferred with the
legislative competence to define cause of action or to declare where it would
be deemed to have arisen so as to lay down artificial or deeming test for
determining territorial jurisdiction over an individual case or class of cases-
Whether or not a case arises in a district lying within the jurisdiction of D
bench seat, is a question to be decided judicially, in case to case, and not
by an administrative order of the Chief Justice made generally-States
Reorganisation Act, 1956--Sections JO, 49(2), 51(1), 51(2), 54, 57-High
Court of Rajasthan (Establishment of a Permanent Bench at Jaipur) Order,
1976-----Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949--Section 44(2)_
E
Jurisdiction :

Territorial Jurisdiction in a state carved out between the principal seat
and the permanent bench seat-Provision in the Constitution for exerc1~·e of
territorial jurisdiction in a writ petition by a High Court- Application of. to
functioning of the bifurcated territorial jurisdiction-Held, in case of a dispute F
arising whether an individual case or cases should be filed and heard at

- principal seat or permanent seat, the same has to be found out by seeing in
which district the cause of action can be said to have arisen and then
exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution-- -Constitution
of India, 1950----Article 226.
G
Words and Phrases:

'Cause of action ' Meaning of

The present State of Rajasthan came into being in accordance with the
States Reorganisation Act, 1956. Subsequently, the President of India directed B
743
744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Jodhpur to be the principal seat of the new High Court for the State of
Rajasthan. Initially, the Chief Justice of the State established a temporary
Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur. Eventually, the President
issued an order for establishment of a permanent Bench of the Rajasthan
High Court at Jaipur. Subsequently, the then Acting Chief Justice of the High
B Court ofRajasthan issued an order carving out jurisdiction between the cases
to be heard at Jodhpur principal seat and the Jaipur Bench seat. Later on,
the Acting Chief Justice issued yet another order substituting a new
explanation defining where the cause of action shall be deemed to have arisen
in a writ case.

C The aforesaid orders of the Acting Chief Justice were challenged in a
writ petition filed before the High Court It was submitted that the explanation
inserted in the order of the Acting Chief Justice was ultra vires the powers
of the Chief Justice; that the State Reorganisation Act, the Presidential Order
and no other provision of law authorises the Chief Justice to define where a
cause of action in a writ case would be deemed to have arisen so as to determine
D where it would be filed. The High Court upheld the aforesaid pleas and directed
the explanation issued by the Acting Chief Justice to be struck down. Hence,
the present appeal.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

E HELD : I.I. The Chief Justice of the High Court has not been conferred
with the legislative competence to define cause of action or to declare where
it would be deemed to have arisen so as to lay down artificial or deeming test
for determining territorial jurisdiction over an individual case or class of
cases. The permanent Bench at Jaipur has been established by the Presidential
Order issued under sub-section(2) of Section 51 of the States Reorganisation
F Act. The territorial jurisdiction of the permanent Bench at Jaipur is to be
exercised in respect of the cases arising in the specified districts. Whether
the case arises from one of the specified districts or not so as to determine
the jurisdictional competence to hear by reference to territory bifurcated
between the principal seat and the Bench seat, shall be an issue to be decided
G in an individual case by the judge or judges hearing the matter if a question
may arise in that regard. The impugned explanation appended to the Order of
the Chief Justice runs counter to the Presidential Order and in a sense it is
an inroad into the jurisdiction of judges hearing a particular case or cases,
pre-empting a decision to be given in the facts of individual case whether it
can be said to have arisen in the territory of a particular district.
H (754-G, H; 755-A, Bl
RAJAS THAN HIGH COURT ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION v. t; 0.1 745

Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, AIR (1976) SC 331, A
relied on.

U.P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad v. State of U.P., (1995) 4
SCC 738; Ram Rakh v. Union of India & Ors., AIR (1977) Rajasthan 243,
referred to.
B
1.2. The establishment of a permanent Bench at Jaipur and defining its
territorial jurisdiction brought out a bifurcation of State of Rajasthan into
two for the purpose of division of territorial jurisdiction of the High Court
between the principal seat and the permanent Bench seat. The Chief Justice
of the State cannot, thereafter, artificially or indirectly take away the C
jurisdiction belonging to one and confer it on the other. Conferring a
discretion on the Chief Justice to order any case or class of cases arising in
any district within the territorial jurisdiction of permanent Bench at Jaipur
shall be heard at Jodhpur cannot spell out a power to define where the cause
of action shall be deemed to have arisen in a writ case. [751-G, H; 752-AI
D
State of Maharashtra v. Narayana Shamrao Puranik & Ors., AIR (1983)
SC 46, referred to.

1.3. Section 44 of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 entrusts the
Chief Justice with responsibility for distribution and conduct of the business
of the High Court and to determine which Judge shall sit singly and which in E
a Bench. The responsibility entrusted carries with it, as a necessary
concomitant, the power needed in the Chief Justice to effectively fulfil the
responsibility. This provision too does not vest the Chief Justice with power
to enact an explanation as is in question. Roster is framed generally by
identifying particular subject matter or nature of cases which will be listed
for hearing before different Benches consistently with the rules of business F
of the Court. Thereafter listing of cases is to be done by the Registrar in a
routine. Power to frame a roster vests the Chief Justice with an administrative
control over the distribution of judicial work of the Court. It has nothing to
do with how a Judge would then judicially function in dealing with a case listed
before him as per roster. A writ case when listed before a Judge for hearing G
as per roster may be heard or refused to be heard by him depending on his
opinion formed on the judicial side on the question whether the cause of action
in that case arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the Bench seat or
not. Whether or not a case arises in a district lying within the jurisdiction of
Bench seat- --is a question to be decided judicially, in case to case, and not by
an administrative order of the Chief Justice made generally. [752-E, F, G, HI H
746 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R

A 1.4. Section 54 of the States Reorganisation Act speaks of practice and
procedure in the High Court. Section 57 speaks of powers of the Chief
Justice, Single Judges and Division Benches of the High Court and provides
that the laws in force immediately before the appointed day relating to such
powers and with respect to matters ancillary to the exercise of those powers
B shall, with the necessary modifications, apply in relaoon to the High Court
for a new State. None of the two provisions can spdlout .any legislative power
having been conferred on the Chief Justice to define cause of action. (753-A,Bl

2. The expression 'cause of action' has acquired a judicially settled
meaning. In the restricted sense cause of action means the circumstances
C 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
the suit, including not only the infraction of the right, but the infraction
coupled with the right itself. Compendiously 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 judgement of the Court. Every fact which is necessary
D to be proved, as distinguished from every piece of evidence which is necessary
to prove each fact, comprises in 'cause of action'. It has to be left to be
determined in each individual case as to where the cause of action arises.
(754-E, Fl

3. The purpose of the Presidential Order is to carve out and define
E territorial jurisdiction between the principal seat at Jodhpur and the
permanent bench seat at Jaipur. The cases are to be heard accordingly unless
the Chief Justice may exercise in his discretion the power vested in him by
the pro"iso to para 2 of the Presidential order. Clauses (1) and (2) of Article
226 of the Constitution provide how territorial jurisdiction shall be exercised
p by any High Court. Although the said clauses do not deal with principal seat
or permanent Bench of any High Court, there is no reason why the principle
underlying thereunder cannot be applied to the functioning of the bifurcated
territorial jurisdiction between the principal seat and permanent Bench seat
of any High Court. In case of a dispute arising whether an individual case or
cases should be filed and heard at Jodhpur or Jaipur, the same has to be found
G out by applying the test - from which district the case arises, that is, in which
district the cause of action can be said to have arisen and then exercising the
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. (755-D, E, FJ

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 16698 of 1996.

H From the Judgment and Order dated 9.3.92 of the Rajasthan High Court
RAJASTllAN Hl(jH COi IRT ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION v. U.0.1. [LAHOTI, J. J 747

in D.B.C.W.P. No. 787of1991. A
Mukul Rohtagi, Additional Solicitor General, B.D. Sharma, Narottam
Vyas, A. Subba Rao, P. Parmeswaran, Aruneswltr Gupta, Ms. Sandhya Goswami
and Sushi! Kumar Jain for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B
R.C. LAHOTI, J. The present State of Rajasthan came into being on
November I, 1956 in accordance with the States Reorganisation Act, 1956
(hereinafter the Act) consisting of the territories mentioned in Section 10
thereof. Sub-section (2) of Section 49 mandates a High Court being established C
for the new State of Rajasthan as from the appointed day, i.e., November I,
1956. On October 27, 1956, the President of India in exercise of the powers
conferred by sub-section (I) of Section 51 of the Act, directed Jodhpur to be
the principal seat of the new High Court for the State of Rajasthan. Initially
the Chief Justice of the State established a temporary bench of the High Court
of Rajasthan at Jaipur but eventually exercising the power conferred by sub- D
section (2) of Section 51 of the Act the President, on January 31, 1977 issued
an Order which reads as under:-

"In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (2) of Section
51 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (37of1956), the President,
after consultation with the Governor of Rajasthan and the Chief Justice E
of the High Court of Rajasthan, is pleased to make the following
Order, namely :-

I. Short title and Commencement-{!). This Order may be called
the High Court of Rajasthan (Establishment of a Permanent Bench at
Jaipur) Order, I 976. F
(2) It shall come into force on the 3 I st day of January, 1977.

2. Establishment of a Permanent Bench of the Rajasthan High
Court at Jaipur-There shall be established a permanent Bench of
the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur, and such Judges of the High G
Court of Rajasthan, being not less than five in number, as the Chief
Justice of that High Court may, from time to time nominate, shall sit
at Jaipur in order to exercise the jurisdiction and power for the time
being vested in that High Court in respect of cases arising in the
districts of Ajmer, Alwar, Bharatpur, Bundi, Jaipur, Jhalawar, Jhunjhunu,
Kotah, Sawai Madhopur, Sikar and Tonk. H
748 St:PREME COURT REPORTS [2000f SCPP. 5 S.CR.

A Provided that the Chief Justice of that High Court may, in his
discretion, order that any case or class of cases arising in any such
district shall be heard at Jodhpur.

New Delhi. Sd/- F.A. AHMAD
December 8, 1976. President.
B
On 23rd December, 1976, the then Acting Chief Justice of the High
Court of Rajasthan issued the following order carving out jurisdiction between
the cases to be heard at Jodhpur principal seat and the Jaipur Bench seat :-

"RAJ. HIGH COURT, JODHPUR
c NOTIFICATION

No. 1/J.B. Dated Dec. 23, 1976.

In pursuance of the High Court of Rajasthan (Establishment of a
Pennanent Bench at Jaipur) Order, 1976, and in exercise of the powers
under sub-sec. (2) of S.44 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance,
D 1949, read with Ss.54 and 57 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956,
the Honble the xx x x Chief Justice has been pleased to order that with
effect from the 31st day of January, 1977

(a) all cases arising in the revenue districts of Banswara. Barmer,
Bikaner, Bhilwara, Chitorgarh, Churu, Dungarpur, Ganganagar, Jaisalmer,
E Jalore, Jodhpur, Nagaur, Pali, Sirohi and Udaipur (except such case or
class of cases as may by special order be transferred to the Jaipur
Bench) shall be disposed of by the Court at Jodhpur, and

(b) all cases arising in the revenue districts of Ajmer, Al war,
Bundi, Bharatpur, Jaipur, Jhalawar, Jhunjhunu, Kotah, Sawai Madhopur,
F Sikar and Tonk (except such case or class of cases as may by special
order be transferred to the Court at Jodhpur) shall be disposed of by
the Court at Jaipur.
Provided that a Vacation Judge, whether sitting at Jodhpur or at
Jaipur may hear any case irrespective of the district in which it has
G arisen for the purpose of deciding any matter which in his opinion
requires immediate action.
Explanation.- A writ case shall be deemed to arise in the district
where the first order pertaining to that case was passed by a Court,
Tribunal or Authority irrespective of the district in which the appeal
H or revision from that order is heard and irrespective also of the fact
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT ADVOCATES ASSOCIA T!ON v. U.0.1. [LAHOTI, J J 749
whether or not there has been any modification or reversal of the A
order in appeal or revision.
Sd/-
Ved Pal Tyagi
CHIEF JUSTICE 23-12-76.

On ,12th January, 1977 the learned Acting Chief Justice issued yet B
another order substituting a new explanation now forming part of the order
dated December 23, 1976, which reads as under :-

In the above order for the Explanation the following may be
substituted.-
Explanation - A writ case shall be deemed to arise in the district
c
where the cause of action for issuing the first order pertaining to that
case passed by a Court, tribunal or authority has arisen irrespective
of the district in which the appeal or revision from that order is heard
and irrespective also of the fact whether or not there has been any
modification or reversal of the order in appeal or revision. D
Sd/-
Ved Pal Tyagi
CHIEF JUSTICE 12-1-77.

The validity of the Presidential Order dated December 8, 1976 as also E
of the abovesaid orders of the Acting Chief Justice was put in issue on very
many grounds but the same was turned down by a Division Bench of the
High Court of Rajasthan. (See Ram Rakh v. Union of India & Ors., AIR [ 1977]
Rajasthan 243 ). Briefly it may be stated that the grounds on which challenge
was laid to the order of the Acting Chief Justice were : "(I) Unless the High
Court of Rajasthan (Establishment of a Permanent Bench at Jaipur) Order, 1976 F
comes into force, the Acting Chief Justice could not have passed any order
under its authority; (2) The Acting Chief Justice could not have passed any
order for the transfer of pending cases or the cases instituted at the main seat
at Jodhpur upto 31-1-1977 under the authority of the Presidential Order,
inasmuch as the Presidential Order is clearly prospective in operation; (3)
Under the proviso to the Presidential Order, cases falling within the jurisdiction G
of the Jaipur Bench could be withdrawn to the main seat at Jodhpur and not
vice versa; (4) The Acting Chief Justice cannot decide, in his administrative
capacity, the fact of jurisdiction for the purpose of allocation of cases to the
Jaipur Bench on the basis of cause of action."
A perusal of the decision of the Division Bench in Ram Rakh 's case H
750 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A (supra) goes to show that in para 7, having set out the four grounds of
challenge to the validity of the order issued by the Acting Chief Justice, the
Division Bench has observed "these contentions cannot, in our opinion,
prevail. However, a perusal of para 29 of the report goes to show that
contention numbers 2 and 3 were taken up by the Division Bench for
B consideration as "two principal grounds" while the contention no.4 with
which we are concerned here (in view of the submissions made at the Bar)
was not dealt with and disposed of by the Division Bench. It appears that
the Division Bench (vide para 37 of the report) fonned an opinion that the
appellant before it was an advocate practising at Jodhpur and nothing was
brought to the notice of the Division Bench to show if he was a, person
C aggrieved.

In the present writ petition filed before the High Court very many
grounds of challenge were raised and also argued but we would be dealing
with only one inasmuch as the learned counsel for the parties conceded at
the Bar that this was the only issue surviving for consideration and which
D deserves to be dealt by this court.

It was submitted before the High Court of Rajasthan that the explanation
inserted in the order of the Acting Chief Justice dated December 23, 1976 by
the subsequent order dated January 12, 1977 was ultra vires the powers of
the Chief Justice. The States Reorganisation Act, the Presidential Order and
E no other provision of law authorises the Chief Justice to define where a cause
of action in a writ case would be deemed to have arisen so as to determine
where it would be filed. The High Court in its impugned order has upheld the
plea so raised and directed the explanation abovesaid to be struck down.
Feeling aggrieved, the Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association, Jodhpur
F has filed this appeal by special leave.

The order of the Chief Justice, whereto is appended the impugned
explanation, refers to the Presidential Order, sub-section (2) of S~ction 44 of
the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 and Sections 54 and 57 of the
States Reorganisation Act, 1956 as the sources of power exercised in issuing
G the notification. We will deal with each one of the three.

The Presidential Order having established a permanent bench of the
High Court ofRajasthan at Jaipur and having appointed the minimum number
of judges as would sit at Jaipur proceeded to declare that the pennanent
bench seat at Jaipur shall exercise the jurisdiction and power for the time
H being vested in the High Court in respect. of cases arising in the districts, 11
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION v. U.0.L [LAHOTl,J 1 751

in number, as mentioned therein. A discretionary jurisdiction is also conferred A
on the Chief Justice of the High Court to order that any case or class of cases
arising in any district forming part of territorial jurisdiction of the permanent
bench at Jaipur shall be heard at Jodhpur (principal seat). The Presidential
Order is clear. The jurisdiction allocated to the permanent bench at Jaipur is
by reference to territory covered by the 11 specified districts. The proviso B
appended to para 2 of the Presidential Order speaks of any case or class of
cases but therefrom too a power in the Chief Justice to define cause of action
cannot be spelled out.

The nature and extent of power conferred on the President by Section
51 of the Act came up for the consideration of this Court in State of C
Maharashtra v. Narayan Shamrao Puranik & Ors., AIR (1983) SC 46. It was
held:
"It is clear upon the terms of S.51 of the Act that undoubtedly the
President has the power under sub-section (I) to appoint the principal
seat of the High Court for a new State. Likewise, the power of the
President under sub-section (2) thereof, after consultation with the D
Governor of a new State and the Chief Justice of the High Court for
that State, pertains to the establishment of a permanent Bench or
Benches of that High Court of a new State at one or more places
within the State other than the place where the principal seat of the
High Court is located and for any matters connected therewith clearly E
confer power on the President to define the territorial jurisdiction
of the permanent Bench in relation to the principal seat as also for
the conferment of exclusive jurisdiction to such permanent Bench to
hear cases. arising in districts falling within its jurisdiction. The
creation of a permanent Bench under sub-section (2) of Section 51 of
the Act must therefore bring about a territorial bifurcation of the High F
Court."
[emphasis added.]

The establishment of a permanent Bench at Jaipur and defining its
territorial jurisdiction brought out a bifurcation of State of Rajasthan into two G
for the purpose of division of territorial jurisdiction of the High Court between
the principal seat and the permanent Bench seat. The Chief Justice of the
State cannot, thereafter, artificially or indirectly take away the jurisdiction
belonging to one and confer it on the other. Conferring a discretion on the
Chief Justice to order any case or class of cases arising in any district within
the territorial jurisdiction of permanent Bench at Jaipur shall be heard at H
752 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Jodhpur cannot spell out a power to define where the cause of action shall
be deemed to have arisen in a writ case.

Section 44 of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance 1949 provides as
under:

B 44. Distribution of business and administrative control--( I) The High
Court may, by its own rules, provide as it thinks fit for the exercise by one
or more Judges, or by Division Courts constituted by two or more Judges of
the Higli Court, of its original and appellate jurisdiction.

(2) The Chief Justice shall be responsible for the distribution and conduct
C of the business of the High Court, and shall determine which Judge in each
case will sit alone and which Judges of the Court will constitute a Bench.

(3) The administrative control of the High Court shall vest in the Chief
Justice who may exercise it in such manner and after such consultation with
D the other Judges as he may think fit or may delegate such of his functions
as he deems fit to any other Judges of the High Court.

Sub-section (2) abovesaid has to be read along with sub-section (I). It
entrusts the Chief Justice with responsibility for distribution and conduct of
the business of the High Court and to determine which Judge shall sit singly
E and which in a Bench. The responsibility entrusted carries with it, as a
necessary concomitant, the power needed in the Chief Justice to effectively
fulfil the responsibility. The provision is what is popularly called, a power to
frame a roster. This provision too does not vest the Chief Justice with power
to enact an explanation as is in question. Roster is framed generally by
identifying particular subject matter or nature of cases which will be listed for
F hearing before different Benches consistently with the rules of business of
the Court. Thereafter listing of cases is to be done by the Registrar in a
routine. Power to frame a roster vests the Chief Justice with an administrative
control over the distribution of judicial work of the Court. It has nothing to
do with how a Judge would then judicially function in dealing with a case
G listed before him as per roster. A writ case when listed before a Judge for
hearing as per roster may be heard or refused to be heard by him depending
on his opinion formed on the judicial side on the question whether the cause
of action in that case arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the bench seat
or not. Whether or not a case arises in a district lying within the jurisdiction
of bench seat is a question to be decided judicially, in case to case, and not
H by an administrative order of the Chief Justice made generally.
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION v. U.0.1. [LAHOTI, J) 753
Section 54 of the Act speaks of practice and procedure in the High A
Court. Section 57 speaks of powers of the Chief Justice, Single Judges and
Division Courts of the High Court and provides that the laws in force
immediately before the appointed day relating to such powers and with
respect to matters ancillary to the exercise of those powers shall, with the
necessary modifications, apply in relation to the High Court for a new State. B
None of the two provisions can spell out any legislative power having been
conferred on the Chief Justice to define cause of action.
The expression similar to the one "in respect of cases arising in the
districts of" as used in para 2 of the Presidential Order came up for the
consideration of a 4-Judges Bench of this Court in Nasiruddin v. State
Transport Appellate Tribunal, AIR (1976) SC 331. It was in the context of C
division of territorial jurisdiction between Allahabad and Lucknow benches
in IJttar Pradesh. This Court held :-
" ........... the expression "cause of action" in an application under Article
226 would be as the expression is understood and if the cause of
action arose because of the appellate order or the revisional order D
which came to be passed at Lucknow then Lucknow would have
jurisdiction though the original order was passed at a place outside
the areas in Oudh. It may be that the original order was in favour of
the person applying for a writ. In such case an adverse appellate order
might be the cause of action. The expression "cause of action" is well- E
known. If the cause of action arises wholly or in part at a place within
the spetified Oudh areas, the Lucknow Bench will have jurisdiction.
If the cause of action arises wholly within the specified Oudh areas,
it is indisputable that the Lucknow Bench would have exclusive
jurisdiction in such a matter. If the cause of action arises in part within
the specified areas in Oudh it would be open to the litigant who is F
the dominus litis to have his forum convenience. The litigant has the
right to go to a Court where part of his cause of action arises. In
such cases, it is incorrect to say that the litigant chooses any particular
Court. The choice is by reason of the jurisdiction of the Court being
attracted by part of cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of G
the Court. Similarly, if the cause of action can be said to have arisen
partly within specified areas in Oudh and partly outside the specified
Oudh areas. the litigant will have the choice to institute proceedings
either at Allahabad or Lucknow. The Court will find out in each case
whether the jurisdiction of the Court is rightly attracted by the
a//eged cause of action. " H
754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A "the expression "cause of action" with regard to a civil matter
means that it should be left to the litigant to institute cases at Lucknow
Bench or at Allahabad Bench according to the cause of action arising
wholly or in part within either of the areas. If the cause of action arises
wholly within Oudh areas then the Lucknow Bench will have
jurisdiction. Similarly, if the cause of action arises wholly outside the
B specified areas in Oudh then Allahabad will have jurisdiction. If the
cause of action in part arises in the specified Oudh areas and part of
the cause of action arises outside the specified areas, it will be open
to tlie litigant to frame the case appropriately to attract the jurisdiction
either at Lucknow or at Allahabad."
c "Applications under Article 226 will similarly lie either at Lucknow
now or at Allahabad as the applicant will allege that the whole of
cause of action or part of the cause of action arose at Lucknow within
the specified areas of Oudh or part of the cause of action arose at a
place outside the specified Oudh areas."
D [emphasis added]

The abovesaid view of the law has been reiterated by this Court recently
in UP. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishadv. State of U.P., [1995) 4 SCC
738, Pr.14.

E The expression 'cause of action' has acquired a judicially settled
meaning. In the restricted sense cause of action means the circumstances
formina 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
the suit, including not only the infraction of the right, but the infraction
coupled with the right itself. Compendiously the expression means every fact
F 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". It has to be left to be
detennined in each individual case as to where the cause of action arises. The
G Chief Justice of the High Court has not been conferred with the legislative
competence to define cause of action or to declare where it would be deemed
to have arisen so as to lay down artificial or deeming test for determining
territorial jurisdiction over an individual case or class of cases. The permanent
bench at Jaipur has been established by the Presidential Order issued under
sub-section (2) of Section 51 of the Act. The territorial jurisdiction of the
H permanent bench at Jaipur is to be exercised in respect of the cases arising
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION v. U.0.1. [LAHOTI, J.J 755

in the specified districts. Whether the case arises from one of the specified A
districts or not so as to determine the jurisdictional competence to hear by
reference to territory bifurcated between the principal seat and the bench seat,
shall be an issue to be decided in an individual case by the judge or judges
hearing the matter if a question may arise in that regard. The impugned
explanation appended to the Order of the Chief Justice dated 23rd December,
1976 runs counter to the Presidential Order and in a sense it is an inroad into B
the jurisdiction of the judges hearing a particular case or cases, pre-empting
a decision to be given in the facts of individual case whether it can be said
to have arisen in the territory of a particular district. The High Court is right
in taking the view which it has done.
c
It was submitted at the end by the learned counsel for the appellant that
the Division Bench of the High Court in its impugned order has observed that
the permanent bench at Jaipur shall have "exclusive jurisdiction" to hear the
cases arising out of the 11 specified districts and the High Court at Jodhpur
shall not have jurisdiction to hear those cases which fall within the territorial
jurisdiction of Jaipur Bench. He submitted that the use of word 'exclusive' D
!
pre-fixed to 'jurisdiction' is uncalled for. We find no substance in this contention
as well. The purpose of the Presidential Order is to carve out and define
territorial 'jurisdiction' between the principal seat at Jodhpur and the permanent
bench seat at Jaipur. The cases are to be heard accordingly unless the Chief
Justice may exercise in his discretion the power vested in him by the proviso E
to para 2 of the Presidential order. Clauses (I) and (2) of Article 226 of the
Constitution provide how territorial jurisdiction shall be exercised by any
High Court. Although the said clauses do not deal with principal seat or
permanent bench of any High Court but in our opinion, there is no reason
why the principle underlying thereunder cannot be applied to the functioning
of the bifurcated territorial jurisdiction between the principal seat and permanent F
bench seat of any High Court. In case of a dispute arising whether an
individual case or cases should be filed and heard at Jodhpur or Jaipur, the
same has to be found out by applying the test-ti-om which district the case
arises, that is, in which district the cause of action can be said to have arisen
and then exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. G
For the foregoing reasons we do not find any fault with the findings
arrived at by the High Court. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to the
costs.

M.P. Appeal dismissed. H