“CAUSE OF ACTION” AND ITS IMPORTANCE IN DETERMINING JURISDICTION

This article is written by Namandeep Kaur of 3^rd Semester of Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab, an intern under Legal Vidhiya

ABSTRACT

Jurisdiction is a fundamental aspect of the legal system, determining which court has the authority to hear and decide a case, with the cause of action playing a crucial role in this assessment. The cause of action refers to the bundle of essential facts that give rise to a plaintiff’s legal claim, influencing territorial, subject-matter, and pecuniary jurisdiction. However, its application presents challenges, particularly in multi-jurisdictional disputes, commercial transactions, and digital commerce. Courts rely on legal precedents such as Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim to interpret and apply this principle, but issues like forum shopping and jurisdictional disputes in online transactions complicate legal proceedings. The rise of e-commerce and cross-border contracts has further added complexities, often leading to prolonged litigation. To address these concerns, this article suggests legislative and judicial reforms, including clearer guidelines on substantial cause of action, stricter measures against forum shopping, and updated laws for digital transactions. Additionally, adopting fast-track procedures and AI-driven legal tools can improve jurisdictional clarity and efficiency. Strengthening the legal framework governing jurisdiction will ensure fair and timely adjudication, preventing unnecessary conflicts and streamlining the judicial process.

KEYWORDS

Jurisdiction, Cause of Action, Legal System, Digital Transactions, Territorial Jurisdiction, Subject-Matter Jurisdiction.

INTRODUCTION

The concept of jurisdiction is a cornerstone of the legal system, as it determines which court has the authority to hear and adjudicate a case. A critical factor in determining jurisdiction is the notion of “cause of action,” which refers to the essential facts and circumstances that give rise to a plaintiff’s legal claim. It is upon these facts that a plaintiff seeks judicial intervention and relief. The cause of action not only defines the rights and wrongs of the case but also determines the scope of the court’s authority to address the dispute. Courts rely on the cause of action to assess whether they have the territorial, subject-matter, and pecuniary authority to hear the case.

However, despite the clear definition of cause of action in legal theory, its application in practice often presents significant challenges. The dynamic nature of modern legal disputes, especially those involving commercial transactions, online contracts, and cross-border issues, complicates the jurisdictional analysis. The rise of e-commerce and digital transactions has introduced new complexities in determining the correct forum for disputes, as the cause of action may span multiple locations and jurisdictions. Additionally, issues such as forum shopping—where plaintiffs strategically choose jurisdictions perceived to be more favorable to their case—further hinder the efficient resolution of disputes.

This article seeks to explore the intricate relationship between cause of action and jurisdiction, examining how the facts underlying a claim shape jurisdictional determination. It will delve into key legal precedents and case law that have established principles for applying cause of action in jurisdictional matters. Moreover, the article will identify the challenges faced by courts and litigants in applying these principles, particularly in the context of multi-jurisdictional disputes and modern digital transactions. Lastly, the article will propose recommendations aimed at improving jurisdictional clarity, efficiency, and fairness in the legal process.

DEFINING CAUSE OF ACTION

The term “cause of action” refers to the set of essential facts that a plaintiff must prove in order to substantiate their claim in court. It is not limited to the formal description of the suit or action itself, but instead encapsulates the specific factual elements that are necessary to support a claim for relief. A cause of action encompasses the bundle of facts that gives rise to a legal right to sue, and it is upon these facts that a plaintiff seeks a remedy from the court.[1]

In legal terms, the cause of action involves the factual circumstances that entitle one party to seek judicial intervention against another. This includes the elements of a legal wrong committed by the defendant and the specific legal remedy sought. In essence, the cause of action is the foundation upon which the plaintiff’s right to relief is built. Notably, it is different from the evidence that will be used to prove the facts; rather, it consists of the core facts that must be established to win the case.

As Lord Brett famously stated, cause of action encompasses “every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the court.” Similarly, Lord Esher emphasized that it includes the facts necessary to be proved, rather than the evidence itself. Indian courts have consistently followed this interpretation, and it has been upheld in various cases, reinforcing the understanding of cause of action as the factual basis upon which a claim rests.

Moreover, the scope of a cause of action may vary depending on its nature, but it always includes the crucial act or omission by the defendant that causes the plaintiff to seek redress. It is important to note that a cause of action cannot be based on future events or mere apprehension of harm. A plaintiff must demonstrate that their right has been infringed upon in the present for the cause of action to be valid. Thus, the term “cause of action” has evolved into a judicially recognized concept, encompassing both the factual elements of the dispute and the legal right to seek relief.

UNDERSTANDING JURISDICTION AND ITS CONNECTION TO CAUSE OF ACTION

Jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court to hear and adjudicate a case, and its scope is significantly influenced by the concept of cause of action. The cause of action, which constitutes the set of facts that entitle the plaintiff to seek legal redress, directly impacts the determination of which court holds jurisdiction over a given dispute. This principle is best illustrated by cases like State of Bihar v. Barakar Engineering & Foundry Works Ltd.[2], where the Supreme Court clarified that the cause of action in a tax refund case arose entirely from the state of Bihar, despite certain events occurring in Calcutta. The Court ruled that the Calcutta High Court could not assert jurisdiction over the case based on events unrelated to the claim’s core. This underscores the principle that jurisdiction cannot be based solely on incidental events occurring outside the main cause of action.

The territorial jurisdiction of courts is often determined by where the cause of action, either wholly or partially, arises. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, a High Court can entertain a writ petition if any part of the cause of action falls within its territorial limits. Courts assess jurisdiction based on the facts pleaded in the petition, without examining their accuracy at this stage. Similarly, Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) allows a suit to be filed in a court within whose jurisdiction the cause of action, either wholly or partially, has arisen.[3]

Jurisdiction in civil matters is influenced by both the location of the disputed property and the residence or business location of the defendant, as outlined in Section 16 of the CPC. This provision grants courts authority over suits involving immovable property within their jurisdiction while also allowing the plaintiff to choose the court in cases where multiple jurisdictions apply, under the doctrine of dominus litis. Additionally, jurisdiction is bound by pecuniary limits, ensuring that different courts handle cases based on the financial value of the claim. For instance, small cause courts adjudicate disputes involving lower monetary values.

In legal terms, the “cause of action” refers to the bundle of facts necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to obtain a favorable judgment. This includes every material fact relevant to the case, rather than every piece of evidence required. Legal definitions from Read v. Brown[4] and Halsbury’s Laws of England emphasize that it is the factual situation or event that entitles one party to seek a remedy in court. Courts are cautioned against allowing jurisdiction to be claimed based on minor or incidental events that occur within their territorial limits, particularly when they are unrelated to the substance of the claim.

Ultimately, the interplay between cause of action and jurisdiction ensures that disputes are heard in the appropriate forum, fostering fairness and efficiency in the judicial process. By considering territorial, subject-matter, and pecuniary limitations, courts maintain a balanced and structured approach to adjudication, preventing unnecessary jurisdictional conflicts and streamlining the legal system.

CASE LAW AND PRECEDENTS

The concept of “cause of action” plays a crucial role in determining the jurisdiction of courts in legal disputes. It refers to the material facts that give rise to a legal claim and is instrumental in deciding which court has the authority to hear a case. Jurisdiction is determined based on where the cause of action arises, preventing forum shopping and ensuring fair adjudication.

Several landmark cases have shaped the interpretation of “cause of action” in determining jurisdiction. In Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India[5], the Supreme Court held that the existence of an office in a particular location does not automatically confer jurisdiction unless a substantial part of the cause of action arises there. Similarly, in Sonic Surgical v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.[6], it was established that jurisdiction cannot be claimed merely because a company has a branch office in a particular location.

In Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd.[7], the Supreme Court emphasized that a writ petition is maintainable in a High Court only if a significant portion of the cause of action occurs within its territorial jurisdiction. Likewise, in Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim[8], the Court ruled that a substantial part of the cause of action must arise within a court’s jurisdiction for it to entertain a case.

The principle also extends to consumer disputes, as seen in Melanie Das v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (2014) NC, where the National Commission held that consumer complaints should be filed where the cause of action arises, not merely where the company’s office exists. This aligns with Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd.[9], which clarified that property-related disputes fall under the jurisdiction of the court where the property is situated.

The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 reinforces the principle that jurisdiction is based on where the cause of action arises. The courts have consistently emphasized this interpretation to prevent litigants from arbitrarily selecting jurisdictions.

Overall, the doctrine of “cause of action” ensures fair jurisdictional determination and prevents misuse of the legal system. Courts have upheld that jurisdiction should be based on substantial material facts rather than incidental connections, maintaining the integrity and efficiency of judicial proceedings.

CHALLENGES IN APPLYING CAUSE OF ACTION FOR JURISDICTION

One of the key challenges in legal disputes is determining the jurisdiction of courts based on the cause of action. While the concept is well-established, its practical application often leads to procedural complications, delays, and forum shopping.[10] Courts frequently encounter disputes over whether they have the authority to hear a case, leading to preliminary objections that consume valuable judicial time. Several challenges arise in this context.

The phrase “cause of action” encompasses all essential facts that a plaintiff must prove to succeed in a legal claim. However, courts often face difficulty in precisely defining what constitutes a substantial part of the cause of action. The presence of multiple factors—such as the place where the contract was signed, where it was executed, or where the breach occurred—makes it difficult to determine the correct jurisdiction. As a result, conflicting judicial interpretations create uncertainty, leading to prolonged litigation over preliminary jurisdictional issues.

One of the biggest concerns in jurisdictional disputes is forum shopping, where plaintiffs choose a jurisdiction that is perceived to be more favorable to their case rather than one that has a genuine connection to the dispute. This practice leads to unnecessary litigation and increases the burden on courts. It also results in defendants being dragged into inconvenient jurisdictions, causing undue hardship and affecting the fairness of the trial. Courts have repeatedly discouraged forum shopping through judicial precedents, but litigants continue to exploit loopholes in the law.

Many legal disputes involve multiple jurisdictions, especially in commercial, contractual, and consumer protection cases. A single transaction may have multiple touchpoints—for example, an agreement might be signed in one state, performed in another, and a breach might occur in yet another. In such situations, courts must determine which jurisdiction has the strongest nexus to the dispute. The lack of clear statutory guidelines sometimes results in conflicting judicial rulings, leading to confusion and unpredictability for litigants.

The rise of e-commerce, online contracts, and digital transactions has complicated traditional notions of jurisdiction. In online disputes, the cause of action may arise in multiple locations, such as the place where a website is hosted, where a customer places an order, where payment is processed, or where delivery occurs. This has led to jurisdictional conflicts, particularly in cross-border disputes. Existing laws, which were primarily designed for physical transactions, often struggle to address the complexities of digital commerce, making it difficult to determine the appropriate forum for legal redress.

Jurisdictional challenges often lead to significant delays in judicial proceedings. Defendants frequently raise objections to the territorial jurisdiction of a court as a procedural strategy to stall cases.[11] Courts then have to spend considerable time resolving these objections before proceeding with the merits of the case. This not only burdens the judiciary but also prolongs justice for the parties involved. The procedural delays caused by jurisdictional disputes undermine the efficiency of the legal system and highlight the need for more streamlined mechanisms to address such objections.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING JURISDICTIONAL CLARITY

To address the challenges associated with cause of action and jurisdiction, certain legislative, judicial, and technological reforms are necessary. The following recommendations can help create a more efficient and predictable system for determining jurisdiction.

There is a need for clearer judicial guidelines on what constitutes a substantial cause of action. Courts should develop a more uniform approach through consistent precedents and structured legal tests. Legal reforms should also provide explicit statutory definitions to reduce ambiguity. A standardized framework will prevent unnecessary jurisdictional disputes and ensure that cases are filed in the most appropriate forums.

To discourage litigants from forum shopping, courts should impose strict costs or penalties when it is evident that a case has been filed in an unrelated jurisdiction for strategic advantage. Legislative amendments can also introduce stricter tests to determine the proper jurisdiction before a case proceeds. This will ensure that cases are heard in forums that have a genuine connection to the dispute, promoting fairness and efficiency in the legal process.

Given the rise of online business transactions, there is an urgent need for specific laws that define jurisdiction in digital disputes. Laws should clearly specify whether jurisdiction is based on the place of contract formation, the location of the server, the residence of the consumer, or the place of business operations. International cooperation is also necessary to develop a global framework for resolving cross-border digital disputes, ensuring consistency in jurisdictional principles across different legal systems.

Jurisdictional objections often lead to prolonged procedural delays. Courts should adopt fast-track procedures to resolve these objections at the earliest stage of litigation.[12] One possible reform is the introduction of preliminary hearings specifically for jurisdictional issues, where courts decide the matter conclusively before proceeding to the substantive aspects of the case. Such mechanisms can prevent unnecessary delays and streamline the judicial process.

Courts can leverage technology-driven solutions to assist litigants in identifying the appropriate jurisdiction before filing a case. AI-based legal tools can analyze the factual matrix of a dispute and suggest the most relevant forum for filing a case. Additionally, digital case management systems can ensure that jurisdictional issues are flagged and resolved more efficiently, reducing the burden on courts and minimizing delays.

CONCLUSION

The interplay between cause of action and jurisdiction is fundamental to ensuring that legal disputes are adjudicated in the appropriate forum. While the cause of action provides the necessary factual foundation for a claim, it also serves as the key factor in determining which court has the legal authority to resolve the matter. However, the practical application of this principle often presents substantial challenges, such as jurisdictional disputes, forum shopping, and complications arising from multi-jurisdictional and digital transactions. These challenges not only delay the judicial process but also undermine the efficiency and fairness of the legal system.

To address these challenges, there is an urgent need for clearer judicial guidelines and legislative reforms to streamline jurisdictional determinations. Courts must adopt a more uniform and structured approach to interpreting the cause of action, ensuring that cases are filed in the correct jurisdiction based on genuine connections to the dispute. Moreover, specific legal frameworks must be developed to address the unique issues posed by cross-border digital commerce, where the cause of action can arise in multiple jurisdictions. Additionally, introducing fast-track procedures to resolve jurisdictional objections at the earliest stage of litigation would help reduce procedural delays and improve the overall efficiency of the legal process.

Technological solutions, such as AI-driven legal tools and digital case management systems, could play a significant role in assisting litigants and courts in identifying the most relevant jurisdiction before a case is filed. These tools could analyze the factual matrix of a dispute and recommend the appropriate forum for adjudication, thereby reducing the burden on the judiciary and ensuring that cases are heard in a timely manner.

Ultimately, improving the clarity and efficiency of jurisdictional determinations will enhance the integrity of the judicial system, reduce delays, and ensure that litigants are afforded a fair and just hearing. By addressing the challenges associated with the cause of action and jurisdiction, the legal system can better serve the interests of justice in an increasingly complex and interconnected world.

REFERENCES

1. Abhishek Arul & Srijita Chattopadhyay, Cause of Action: Definition & Role in Civil Proceedings, 2(3) IJALR, 3 (2022), https://ijalr.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Cause-of-Action-Definition-_-Role-in-Civil-Proceedings.pdf.  
2. Mukesh Yadav, Territorial Jurisdiction, Cause of Action: Meaning and Scope,  RESEARCHGATE (July 2019), https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334327521_Territorial_Jurisdiction_Cause_of_Action_Meaning_and_Scope.
3. Shivendra Pratap Singh, Cause of action, KANOONIRAI (Sept 27, 2022), https://kanoonirai.com/cause-of-action/.
4. Tanvi Dubey & Sumit Chatterjee, Essentials of a Civil Suit: Jurisdiction, cause of action and res judicata, BAR & BENCH (Oct. 7, 2023), https://www.barandbench.com/columns/advocates-diary-essentials-of-a-civil-suit-jurisdiction-cause-of-action-and-res-judicata.
5. Tarun Jain, Examining the Concept of ‘Cause of Action’ in India, SSRN (Jan 30, 2008), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1087352.

---

[1] Abhishek Arul & Srijita Chattopadhyay,Cause of Action: Definition & Role in Civil Proceedings, 2(3) IJALR, 3 (2022), https://ijalr.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Cause-of-Action-Definition-_-Role-in-Civil-Proceedings.pdf.  

[2] State of Bihar v. Barakar Engineering & Foundry Works Ltd., AIR 1972 SC 378.

[3] Tanvi Dubey & Sumit Chatterjee, Essentials of a Civil Suit: Jurisdiction, cause of action and res judicata, BAR & BENCH (Oct. 7, 2023), https://www.barandbench.com/columns/advocates-diary-essentials-of-a-civil-suit-jurisdiction-cause-of-action-and-res-judicata.

[4] Read v. Brown, 1889 (22) QBD 128.

[5] Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, (2004) 6 SCC 254.

[6] Sonic Surgical v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 7 SCC 696.

[7] Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd., (2002) 1 SCC 567.

[8] Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim, (2007) 11 SCC 335.

[9] Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd., (2005) 7 SCC 791.

[10] Mukesh Yadav, Territorial Jurisdiction, Cause of Action: Meaning and Scope,  RESEARCHGATE (July 2019), https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334327521_Territorial_Jurisdiction_Cause_of_Action_Meaning_and_Scope.

[11] Tarun Jain, Examining the Concept of ‘Cause of Action’ in India, SSRN (Jan 30, 2008), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1087352.

[12] Shivendra Pratap Singh, Cause of action, KANOONIRAI (Sept 27, 2022), https://kanoonirai.com/cause-of-action/.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.