Holding

The plaintiff may file a separate suit in Pune for causes of action arising from the purchase orders and may amend the Nagpur suit for the remaining claims, with the Nagpur court retaining jurisdiction over the damages claim not covered by the ouster clause.

Summary

Sandeep Polymers Pvt. Ltd., a Nagpur‑based manufacturer, sued Bajaj Auto Ltd. for damages after the latter terminated a lifetime‑supply agreement, causing the plaintiff’s Nagpur plant to become idle. The defendants contended that four purchase orders contained an ouster clause confining all disputes to the Pune courts, and that the contract was executed at Pune, thus depriving the Nagpur court of jurisdiction. The trial court held that the cause of action for damages arose in Nagpur and allowed the suit to proceed, but the High Court returned the plaint, directing the plaintiff to file a suit in Pune for the purchase‑order claims. The Supreme Court clarified that the plaintiff may either file a separate suit in Pune for the purchase‑order causes of action or amend the Nagpur suit for the remaining claims, and that the defendants may raise any available objections. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of without any order as to costs.

Issues considered

Whether the Nagpur court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit despite the ouster clause in the purchase orders restricting jurisdiction to Pune.
Whether the cause of action for damages arising from breach of the lifetime‑supply agreement is distinct from that arising under the purchase orders, permitting separate suits.
Whether the plaintiff may amend the existing suit or file a separate suit in Pune for the purchase‑order claims.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order 2 Rule 2, s. Order 6 Rule 2, s. Order 7 Rule 11, s. Order VII Rule 11, s. Order VI Rule 16, s. Section 9A

Subjects

jurisdictionouster clausecause of actionseparate suitamendment of plaintCPCdamagescontract breach

Judgment

):-
SANDEEP POLYMERS PVT.LTD. A
v.
BAJAJ AUTO LTD. AND ORS.

JULY 20, 2007

[DR. ARIJITPASAYAT AND LOKESHWARSINGH PANTA,JJ.J B
.
,l(,

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:

Or. 7. rr. 8, JO, 108, I I-Distinct causes of action-Jurisdiction of
Court-Sult for damages for breach of agreement stated to be for lifetime c
supply and of various purchase orders flied at Nagpur-Defendants plea I

that the purchase orders clearly provided for jurisdiction of Court at Pune
with an ouster clause-Before Supreme Court plaintiff submllt/ng to file
another suit at Pune as regards the relevant purchase orders and to amend
.> plaint In suit flied In court at Nagpur-Prayer allowed-Directions given 0
>---- accordingly.
The plalntlff·Appellant flied a special civil suit against the defendant·
Respondents for recovery of damages for breach of contract. The stand of the
plalntlfT was that It, having Its manufacturing unit at Nagpur, was ~ngaged In
manufacture of high precision plastic component specially for use by E
automobile Industry. The defendants entered Into an agreement with the,
plalntlfTfor lifetime supply of Its products. Thereafter, the plalntlfT made huge
Investments at Nagpur and had been supplying Its products to defendant no. t
.
I for two decades. Defendant no. I, by his letter dated 3.t 1.1999, which was
~
( i received by the plaintiff at Nogpur on 11.11.1999 terminated Its agreement
with the plalntlfT, as a result of which the machineries Installed at Nagpur by F
the plaintiff speclncolly for supply of products to defendant no. 1 were
rendered of no use; and, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to damages.
Defendant no. l contended that the agreement was executed at Pune and
supplies by the plaintiff were made to It at Pune/Aurangabad, I.e. outside the·
territorial jurisdiction of the civil court at Nagpur, It was further averred G
that parties by consent had restricted the jurisdiction to Pune ~ourt only and
--f
the same was reflected In all the purchase orders. The trial court observed
that the suit was outcome ofthe damages caused to the unit of the plaintiff
because of the breach of the contract and the letter of termination was received
437 H
438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 8 S.C.R.

A by the plaintiff at Nagpur. It, therefore, held that the cause of action to Ole the --+-
1ult arose at Nagpur and directed the suit to proceed. Before the High Court
In the revision petition, defendant no. I submitted that substantial part of the
claim arose our of four purchase orders placed by defendant no. 1 with the
plaintiff all the purchase orders ousted the Jurisdiction or all courts except
the court at Pune. and except the said purchase orders there was no other
B written contract. The High Court directed retum of the plaint as, In Its opinion,
the court at Na1pur had no Jurisdiction to entertain a part of the claims made
In the suit. )L
~
In the Instant appeal med by the plaintiff It was submitted on behalf of
c the appellant that a separate suit would be Oled In relation to purchase orders
at Pune and necessary amendments to the plaint ftled at Nagpur would be
made.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court

D HELD: (I) It shall be open to the appellant to Ole a separate suit In
relation to cause of action If any relatln1 for the purchase orders, at Pune. ..
~
(2) If the appellant Is so advised It may move for amendment of the suit
at Nagpur. ~

(3) It shall be open to the respondents-defendants to raise all objections
E
and take such pleas as are available In law. (Para 14( (4Sl-l>·El
Sopan Sukhdeo Sabia and Ors. v. Assistant Charity Commissioner and
Ors., (200413 SCC 137; Om Prakash Srlvostava v. Union of Indio and Anr.,
(2006) 3 Supp. SCR 803.. (2006( 6 SCC 207, relied on.
F ~
Hakom Singh v. Mis Gammon (India) Ltd., AIR (1971) SC 740; Hanll
Era Textiles Ltd. v. Puromatlc Filters (P) Ltd., (200411 Supp. SCR 333•(2004(
4 SCC 671; and New Moga Transport Compan)1 v. United India Insurance
Co. Ltd. And Ors., (2004) J Supp. SCR 623m(2004) 4 SCC 677, cited.

0 Halsbury Lows o/Englond (Fourth Edition), referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7749 of 2004.
~-
H'

From the Judgment & Order dated 21.07 .2004 of the High Court of
Judicature of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Civil Revision No. 989 of
H 2001.
SANDEEPPOL YMERS PVT. LTD. v. BAJAJ AUTO LTD. [PASAYAT,J.] 439
.>: V.R. Reddy, Dhruv Agarwal and Praveen Kumar for the Appellant. A
.. Joseph Vellapally and Shailendra Swarup for the Repondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. I. Challenge in this appeal is to the order B
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 IO-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, I908 (in short the c
'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.88 I /91 for recovery of
_,. Rs.79,63,99,736/- as damages for breach of contract. The stand of the plaintiff D
,..__ 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
.,1 , 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
E
that it has a most sophisticated factory at Nagpur. Plaintiff is supplying its
products to the Defendant No. I for almost two decades. The defendant no. I
vide registered letter dated 03. I I .1999, which was received by the plaintiff at
' its Nagpur office on 11.11.1999, has tenninated its agreement with the plaintiff.
Due to the said tennination, the machineries which were installed by thf'>
plaintiff specifically for manufacturing moulds for the defendant No. I would F
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. I's action of refusing to honour its promise
and assurance was illegal and arbitrary.

The defendant Nos.I, 3 and 4 filed an application under Section 9A read G
with Order 7 Rule I I ofCPC submitting therein that the suit was clearly abuse
oj process of law and was not maintainable. The registered office of defendants
- -(
I 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
H
440 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 8 S.C.R.
....,..
A (Japan). The lease agreements between defendant No. I and the plaintiff had
been executed at Pune, and supplies were made by the plaintiff to defendant
No. I 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
B at Nagpur at the instance of defendant No. I. 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
c pertaining to jurisdiction is contained in all the purchase orders placed by
defendant No. I 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
D the averments made in the plaint. It reiterated that it had made huge investments
at Nagpur on the assurance made by the defendant No. I. The plaintiff, further, '
~
submitted in its reply that the cause of action for suit has arisen substantially, .....
I
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 ·\....-
E the claims in the plaint was on account of damages etc. for "breach of
II
Memorandum of Understanding (in short 'MoU') and the breach of assurances ,_
gi"Yen by the defendant No.1. The plaintiff, therefore, submitted that if the '
substantial cause of action arises out of damages on. other counts and if the
small part of the claim arises out of purchase order, the claim cannot be
F separated and, therefore, it was in the interest of justice that the Court should ~
entertain the present suit.

3. The learned trial Court, after considering the rival contentions raised
on behalf of the parties, found that the suit was outcome of the damages
caused to the Unit of the plaintiff because of the breach of the contract. I-ie
G further observed that the letter of termination was received by the plaintiff at .--
Nagpur. It is further observed in the order that the term about jurisdiction
pointed out on behalf of the defendants was relating to the breach of contract
under order of purchase and not relating to the damage caused to the plaintiff r-- ,,,.'
by termination of the entire contract which was admittedly for the life time. I--
The learned trial Court, therefore, held that the cause of action to file present 1--
H

~I
SANDEEP POLYMERS Pvr. LTD."· BAJAJ AllTO LTD. [PASA VAT, J.] 441

suit arises at Nagpur and, therefore, directed the suit to proceed according A
to law.

4. Questioning for quashing the order passed by Joint Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Nagpur Civil Revision was filed before the High Court by the
respondents. It was submitted that the substantial part of the claim arises out
of four purchase orders which came to be placed by defendant No. I with the B
plaintiff. All the purchase orders ousted the jurisdiction of all Courts except
the Court at Pune. Except these purchase orders there was no other written
contract. Since the suit is mainly based on the cause of action arising out
of said purchase orders which ousted the jurisdiction of Courts except the
Court situated at Pune, though there may be ancillary cause of action the C
ouster clause in the purchase order governs the proceedings between the
parties.

5. Reference was made to various decisions of this Court in Hakam
Singh v. Mis Gammon (India) Ltd AIR(l971) SC 740, Hanil Era Textiles Ltd.
v. Puromatic Filters (P) Ltd., [2004] 4 sec 671 and New Moga Transport D
Company v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd And Ors., [2004] 4 SCC 677. The
plaintiff-appellant before this Court referred to various Mou dated 6. I l.1996
and submitted that the same related to the technical terms between the
parties. As per the said terms the plaintiff was entitled to receive 7 moulds '
but it was given 4 moulds. There was no ouster clause in the said MoU and,
therefore, suit for breach of terms would not be covered by the ouster clause. E

6. Reference has also been made to various communications dated
9. I0.1993, 25.5.1996, 30.11.1996 and 23.9.1997 to substantiate the stand that
assurance was given by defendant No. I to the plaintiff that the plaintiff would
be its life time supplier. Relying on the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC F
it was submitted that the suit is required to include the whole of the claim
which the plaintiff was entitled to make in respect of the cause of action.
Therefore, it was necessary for it to join all causes of action and since only
insignificant part of cause of action was governed by the purchase orders
the suit filed at Nagpur will not be governed by the ouster clause.
p
7. The High Court referred to various purchase orders and conditions
and averments in the plaint. With reference to the averments held that the
claims were referable to the purchase orders. The averments in para 29 indicated
that they were referable to MoU dated 6.11.1996. According to the High Court
perusal of the purchase orders indicated that the said MoU was also a part
H
442 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 8 S.C.R.

A of the purchase orders. With reference to Condition No.20 of the purchase -1-.
orders it was held that only the Pune Court had jurisdiction in all the matters
arising out of the purchase orders. Accordingly, the High Court held that the
suit is based on several causes of action and it was open to the plaintiff to
file a suit for causes of action not related to purchase order at Nagpur and
to file another suit' arising out of cause of action related to the purchase
B orders at Pune.

8. Accordingly, the order was passed for return of the plaint.
)..

9. In support of the appeal, with reference to the order of the trial Court
it was submitted that in para 60 it was categorically held that the court at
c Nagpur had jurisdiction to try the suit. The High Court accepted that by
operation of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC it was permissible to raise several causes of
action and there was no ouster clause in that sense. The main relief is for
damages and costs incurred. The purchase order related only to part of the
relief claimed. Therefore, it was submitted that the trial Court's view should f-
D not have been interfered with.
~ .,
10. In response, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the J
High Court has noted that the purchase orders clearly excluded the jurisdiction
and, therefore, the High Court's view is irreversible.
.
E 11. The relevant portion of the purchase orders which are identical "'
reads as follows:

"NOTES:

1. THE MOULDS WILL BE DESIGNED AND MANUFACTURED AS
PER THE FOLLOWING:
F ~
( 1) THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) DATED 6
NOVEMBER 1996, EXECUTED BETWEEN MIS BAL MIS MARUBENT
CORPORATION, ;.
}

MIS TAKAHASHI SEIKI CO., LTD., M/S TOKYO R&D CO. LTD.
G AND MIS SUNDEEP POLYMERS PVT. LTD. AND AMENDMENT
THERETO AS MAY BE AGREED TO BETWEEN THE PARTIES FROM
TIME TO TIME AS PER THE PROJECT NEEDS.
}-
(2) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT DATED 11/2/97
.BETWEEN TAKAHASHI SEIKI CO. LTD. AND SUNDEEP POLYMERS
H
l
r
<
SANDEEPPoL YMERSPVT. LTD. v. BAJAJAlITOLTD. [PASAYAT,J.] 443

>:--
LID. A
TERMS AND CONDITIONS

I. PRICE
PRICES ARE FIRM AND FOR FREE DELIVERY AT OUR WORKS.
I
B
6. PAYMENT
600/o ADVANCE ALONG WITH THE ORDER.
20% AFTER SUBMISSION OF Tl SAMPLE
"" 20% AFTER FINAL APPROVAL OF SAMPLE
c
AND MOULD
12. GUARANTEE
MOULD SHOULD BE GUARANTEED FOR QUALilY, PRECISION,
.f.
RELIABILITY AND ALSO FOR WORKMANSHIP AND
PERFORMANCE, USE OF MATERIAL AND DESIGN WE SHOULD D
BE ABLE TO GET MINIMUM 300,000 PIECES WITH NORMAL
;...
MAINTENANCE.

CONDITIONS

15. The prices and terms and conditions in this order will be taken as E
firm and cannot be changed till the order is fully executed.

- 20. This contract shall be deemed to have been entered into at Pune
and only Pune Courts will have jurisdiction in all matters arising out
of this Order."
F
-y. Some of the pleadings in the plaint also need to be noted.

"29. In the year 1995 or near about, the 1st defendant finalized the new
model scooter in the Japan, Code name alpha-4 in co-operation with·,
the defendant No.5. Since this was to be a modem design vehicle,
having entire plastic body, it was important to select a top quality G
supplier in India for the development of supplier of plastic parts for
alpha-4 vehicle and such similar models in the future.
--1 (a) The l defendant placed an order for a supply of a part of the1
moulds for the alpha-4 (iom the defendant No.5 and raised a purchase
H
444 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 8 S.C.R.

A order No.529911 dated 6/11/1996 on the 5th defendant for an -;;...
approximate amount of Rs.JPY 175 Million. The plaintiff craves leave
to refer to and rely upon the aforesaid Purchase Order of the l
defendant when produced.

(b) A Memo. of Understanding (MOU) has been entered into by
B various parties involved in the development of Alpha-4, viz. t,he plaintiff,
defendant Nos. I and 3, Takahashi Seiki and another Japanese Company
Tokyo R&D Co. Ltd. This MoU spelt out the role and obligation of
each party in the development of the plastic parts of the Alpha-4. The 'f..
1st defendant also spelt out its commitment in buying the plastic parts
from the moulds supplied by the 5th defendant and for which the )

c plaintiff was to set up additional investments. Hereto enclosed and
\

annexed as document No.XXIV is a copy of the aforesaid Mou."

33. In line with the aforesaid understanding betWeen the plaintiff and
the 1st, 4th and 5th defendants and also relying upon the MoU and
the 1st defendant's letter dated 30.11.1996 the plaintiff agreed to accept f-
D the 4 sets of Purchase Orders for the manufacture of l 0 Alpha-4
moulds, raised by the l st defendant, at an initial payment of Rs.296. 7 ~
lacs. These Purchase Orders are:

(a) No.541024 dated 12/2/1997 for Rs.148.5 lacs.

E (b) No.541023 dated 12/2/1991 for Rs.111.5 lacs.

(c) No.2121209 dated 22/2/1998 for Rs 35 lacs.

(d) No.20122154 dated 16/3/1998 for Rs.1.7 lacs.

The aforesaid Purchase Orders were in the tine with the MoU and the
F Technical Assistance Agreement, as already spelt out, and the same ~
also mentioned on the Orders."

12. In Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and Ors. v. Assistant Charity Commissioner,
and Ors., [2004) 3 SCC 137 it was inter-alia held as follows:

"16. Submission of learned counsel for respondent No.2-trust was that
G
requirement of law being reading the plaint in its totality, the appellants
cannot take the plea that they would give up or relinquish some of
the reliefs sought for. That would not be permissible. The plea clearly
overlooks the basic distinction between statements of the facts ·
disclosing cause of action and the reliefs sought for. The reliefs
H claimed do not constitute the cause of action. On the contrary, they
SANDEEPPOL YMERSPVf.LTD. v. BAJAJ AUTO LTD. [PASAYAT,J.] 445

constitute the entitlement, if any, on the basis of pleaded facts. As A
indicated above, Order VI Rule 2 requires that pleadings shall contain
and contain only a statement in a concise fonn of the material fac~s
on which the party pleading relies for his claim. If the plea of Mr.
Savant, learned counsel for the respondent-trust is accepted the
distinction between the statement of material facts and the reliance on B
them for the claim shall be obliterated. What is required in law is not
the piecemeal reading of the plaint but in its entirety. Whether the
reliefs would be granted on the pleaded facts and the evidence adduced
is totally different from the relief claimed. All the reliefs claimed may
not be allowed to a party on the pleadings and the evidence adduced.
Whether part of the relief cannot be granted by the Civil Court is a C
different matter from saying that because of a combined claim of
reliefs the jurisdiction is ousted or no cause of action is disclosed,
Considering the reliefs claimed vis-a-vis the pleadings would not
mean compartmentalization or segregation, in that sense. The plea
raised by the respondent•trust is therefore clearly unacceptable.
D
17. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles the reliefs sought for in
the suit as quoted supra have to be considered. The real object of
Order VII Rule 11 of the Code is to keep out of courts irresponsible
law suits. Therefore, the Order X of the Code is a tool in the hands
of the Courts by resorting to which and by searching examination of E
the party in case the Court is prima facie of the view that the suit is
an abuse of the process of the court in the sense that it is a bogus
and irresponsible litigation, the jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 of
the Code can be exercised.

18. As noted supra, Order VII Rule 11 does not justify rejection of any F
particular portion of the plaint. Order VI Rule 16 of the Code is
relevant in this regard. It deals with 'striking out pleadings'. It has
three clauses pennitting the Court at any stage of the proceeding to
strike out or amend any matter in any pleading i.e. (a) which may be
unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or, (b) which may
tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit, or, (c) G
which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court.

19. Order VI Rule 2(1) of the Code states the basic and cardinal rule
of pleadings and declares that the pleading has to state material facts
and not the evidence. It mandates that every pleading shall contain,
H
446 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 8 S.C.R.

A and contain only, a statement in a concise fonn of the material facts
on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case
may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved.

20. There is distinction between 'material fatts' and 'particulars'. The
words 'material facts' show that the facts necessary to fonnulate a
B 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 distinction which has been made between 'material
facts' and 'particulars' was brought by Scott, L.J. in Bruce v. Odhams
Press Ltd., (1936) I KB 697 in the following passage :

c The cardinal provision in Rule 4 is that the statement of claim
must state the material facts. The word "material" means necessary
for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action; and
if any one "material" statement is omitted, the statement of claim
is bad; it is "demurrable" in the old phraseology, and in the new
is liable to be "struck out" under R.S.C. Order XXV, Rule 4 (see
D Philipps v. Philipps (1878) 4 QBD 127; or "a further a~d better
statement of claim" may be ordered under Rule 7.
The function of"particulars" under Rule 6 is quite different. They
are not to be used in order to fill material gaps in a dP.murrable·
statement of claim - gaps which ought to have been filled by
E appropriate statements of the various material facts which together
constitute the plaintiffs cause of action. The use of particulars
is intended to meet a further and quite separate requirement of
pleading, imposed in fairness and justice to the defendant. Their
function is to fill in the picture of the plaintiffs cause of action
F 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.
The dictum of Scott, L.J. in Bruce case (supra) has been quoted with
approval by this Court in Samant N. Balkrishna v. George Fernande::,
G [19691 3 sec 238, and the distinction between "material facts" and
"particulars" was brought out in the following terms:
The word 'material' shows that the facts necessary to fonnulate ......
a complete cause of action must be stated. Omission of a single )- '
material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and the
H statement of claim becomes bad. The function of particulars is to
.-I
\

SANDEEPPOL YMERS PVT. LTD.,._ BAJAJ AlITO LTD. [PASAYAT,J.] 447

present as full a picture of the cause of action with such further A
infonnation in detail as to make the opposite party understand
the case he will have to meet".
Rule 11 of Order VII lays down an independent remedy made available
to the defendant to challenge the maintainability of the suit itself,
irrespective of his right to contest the same on merits. The law B
ostensibly does not contemplate at any stage when the objections
can be raised. and also does not say in express tenns about the filing
of a written statement. Instead, the word 'shall' is used clearly implying
thereby that it casts a duty on the Court to perfonn its obligations in
rejecting the plaint when the same is hit by any of the infinnities C
provided in the four clauses of Rule 11, even without intervention of
the defendant. In any event, rejection of the plaint under Rule I 1 does
not preclude the plaintiffs from presenting a fresh plaint in tenns of
. Rule I3.

xx xx xx xx
D
22. Under Order II Rule l of the Code which contains provisions of
mandatory nature, the requirement is that the plaintiffs are duty bound
to claim the entire relief. The suit has to be so framed as to afford
ground for final decision upon the subjects in dispute and to prevent
further litigation concerning them. Rule 2 further enjoins on the plaintiff E
to include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make
in respect of the cause of action. If the plaintiff omits to sue or
intentionally relinquishes any portion of his claim, it is not pennissible
for him to sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished
afterwards. If the plaintiffs as contended by Mr. Mohta want to
relinquish some reliefs prayer in that regard shall be done before the F
trial Court. A reading of the plaint and the reliefs along with the
contents of the plaint goes to show that the main dispute relates to
the question of continuance of tenancy and the period of tenancy.
They are in essence unrelated with the other reliefs regarding enquiry
into the affairs of the trust. Such enquiries can only be undertaken
under Section 50 of the Act. For instituting the suit of the nature G
specified in Section 50, prior consent of the Charity Commissioner is
necessary under Section 51. To that extent Mr. Savant is right that the
reliefs relatable to Section 50 would require a prior consent in terms
of Section 5l. If the plaintiffs give up those reliefs claimed in accordance
H
448 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 8 S.C.R.

A with law, the question would be whether a cause of action for the
residual claims/reliefs warrant continuance of the suit. The nature of
the dispute is to be resolved by the Civil Court. The question of
tenancy cannot _be decided under Section 50 of the Act. Section 51
is applicable only to suits which are filed by a person having interest
in the trust. A tenant of the trust does not fall within the category of
B a person having an interest in the trust. Except relief in Para D of the
plaint, the other reliefs could be claimed before and can be considered
and adjudicated by the Civil Courts and the bar or impediment in
Sections 50 and 51 of the Act will have no relevance or application
to the other reliefs. That being so, Sections 50 and 51 of the Act
c would not have any application to that part of the relief which relates
to question of tenancy, the term of tenancy and the period of tenancy.
The inevitable conclusion therefore is that Courts below were not
justified in directing rejection of the plaint. However, the adjudication
in the suit would be restricted to the question of tenancy, terms of
tenancy and the period of tenancy only. For the rest of the reliefs, the
D plaintiffs shall be permitted within a month from today to make such
application as warranted in law for relinquishing and/or giving up
claim for other reliefs."

13. In Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India and Anr., [2006] 6 SCC
E 207 it was held as follows:

9. 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 t~e 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.,
F
[1994] 6 sec 322.

JO. 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
G Bhadran v. Madhavan Suni/Kumar, [1998] 6 SGC 5I4.

I I. 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
H the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since
SANDEEPPOLYMERS PVf. LTD. v. BAJAJ AlITOLTD. [PASAYAT,J.] 449

in the absence of such an act no cause of action would possibly A
accrue or would arise. (See South East Asia Shipping Cu. ltd. v. Nav
Bharat Enterprises Pvt. ltd. and Ors., [1996] 3 SCC 443).

12. 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 ' B
occasion for the reaction. In the wider sense, it means the necessary
.J
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, ,c
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).
D
13. 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 'E
which the plaintiff must fail in his suit. (See Gurdit Singh v. Munsha
Singh, [ t 977] 1 sec 79 t ).

14. 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 F
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
G
Edn.) the meaning attributed to the phrase "cause of action" in common
-I
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).
H
450 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 8 S.C.R.

A 15. In Halsbury Laws of England (Fourth Edition) it has been stated +..
as follows:

"C'iuse 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
B 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 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
c the technical cause of action".

16. 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
D 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).
E 17. It would be appropriate to quote para 61 of the said judgment,
which reads as follows:-

"61. (I) The correct test in cases falling under Order II 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
F fonner suit (Moonshee Buzloor Fuheer v. Shumroonnissa Begum,
(1967)11MooI551: 2 Bar 259 (P.C.). ,
(2) The 'cause of action' m~ans every fact which will be necessary
for the plaintiff to prove it traversed in order to support his right
to the judgment (Real v. Brown; (1889) 22 Q.8.0. 138: 58 L.J. Q.B.
G 476). \ ·.
(3) If the evidence to support the two claims is different, then the
causes of action are also different. (Brunsoon v. Nurnphroy,
18841Q.8.0.141.: 53 L.J.Q. B. 476).

H (4) The causes of action in the two suits may be considered to
SANDEEP POLYMERS PVf. LTD. v. BAJAJ AUTO LTD. [PASA YAT,J.] 45 J

be the same if in substance they are identical (Brunsoon v. A
Numphroy, supra).
(5) The cause of action has no relation whether to the defence
that may be set up by the defendant nor does it depend upon
the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. It refers ....
to media upon which the plaintiff asks the Court to arrive a B
conclusion in his favour. (Mst. Chand Kour v. Pratap Singh :
(1887)15 IA 156. This observation was made by Lord Watson in
a case under section 43 of the Act of 1880 (corresponding to
Order II, Rule 2) where plaintiff made various claim in the same
suit".
c
14. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a separate suit
shall be filed in relation to purchase orders at Pune and necessary amendments
to the plaint filed at Nagpur shall be made. It shall be open to the respondents-
defendants to raise such objections and to take such stand as are available.
In view of above, we dispose of the appeal with the following directions: D
(I) It shall be open to the appellant to file a separate suit in relation
to cause of action if any relating for the purchase orders, at Pune
as was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant.
(2) If the appellant is so advised it may move for amendment of the
suit at Nagpur. E
(3) It shall be open to the respondents-defendants to raise all
objections and take such pleas as are available in law.

15. Appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.

RP. Appeals disposed of. F