TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 652X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the appellant holding that the Allahabad High Court would have also jurisdiction to deal with grievances of the writ petitioner and can deal with conditions of prisoners in that State more effectively, though the Delhi High Court may have jurisdiction. Background facts sans unnecessary details are as follows: Appellant had filed a Writ Petition before the Delhi High Court taking the stand that he was being tried in several cases contrary to the extradition decree. Appellant came to India by way of extradition from Singapore. Presently, the appellant was facing trial in eight cases which is in complete violation of the provisions of Section 21 of the Extradition Act, 1962 (in short the 'Extradition Act'). He had also pleaded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt appeal, we are not concerned with the question whether there is any violation of the terms of Extradition Act. The only question that needs consideration is whether the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The Delhi High Court accepted that it may have jurisdiction but it was of the view that the grievance can be more effectively dealt with by the Allahabad High Court. Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution is of great importance. It reads as follows: (2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action wholly or in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the 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. (1994 (6) SCC 322). 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 Bhadran v. Madhavan Sunil Kumar (1998 (6) SCC 514). 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 word ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 which the plaintiff must fail in his suit. (See Gurdit Singh v. Munsha Singh (1977 (1) SCC 791). 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 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 en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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). It would be appropriate to quote para 61 of the said judgment, which reads as follows:- 61. xxx xxx xxx (1) The correct test in cases falling under Order 11 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 former suit (Moonshee Buzloor Fuheer v. Shumroonnissa Begum, (1967)11 Moo I 551 (P.C.). (2) The 'cause of action' means every fact which will be necessary for the plaintiff to prove it tranversed to order to support his right to the judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
