Although Code of Civil Procedure does not define the expression “Cause of Action” but from various judgements, it is understood to be a set of facts alleging an act or omission by the defendant which caused or may cause some loss or damage to the Plaintiff. For any civil suit, Cause of Action is a foundational stone and in absence of a cause of action, the civil suit can not sustain.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.B.C Laminart Pvt Ltd Vs A.P Agencies, Salem (1989) 2 SCC 163, explained Cause of Action as:
A cause of action means every fact which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the court. It is a bundle of facts which, taken with the law applicable to them, gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant, since in the absence of such an act no cause of action can possibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual infringement of the right sued on but includes all the material facts on which it is founded. It does not comprise evidence necessary to prove such facts, but every fact necessary for the plaintiff to prove to enable him to obtain a decree. Everything which if not proved would give the defendant a right to immediate judgment must be part of the cause of action. But it has no relation whatever to the defense which may be set up by the defendant nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff.
The above definition amply clears that Cause of Action includes material facts consisting of some act done by the Defendant.
Judicial Ecosystem in India is to a very large extent occupied by frivolous, fabricated and vindictively motivated suits. These suits may not have a valid cause of action but the litigants manufacture a cause of action with some ill intent or ulterior motive.
This is where order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure comes into play. The provision enlists certain criteria which if not met, the suit is liable to be dismissed. One such criteria is presence of Cause of Action. If a civil suit does not disclose a cause of or lacks cause of Action, it is liable to be dismissed under the provision of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Unscrupulous litigants aware of this position of law tend to create an Illusion of Cause of Action by way of Clever Drafting which in turn has burdened the already burdened judiciary. As a stakeholder in the ecosystem, it becomes our shared responsibility to weed out such frivolous and bogus litigations which only tend to settle scores and in the process waste judicious time of Courts in India.
The Phenomenon that upon the face of the Plaint, there seems to be a cause of action however on a meaningful reading of the Plaint, there exists no cause of action is called- Illusion of Cause of Action by way of Clever drafting.
In the case of T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal & Anr., (1977) 4 SCC 467, the Hon’ble Supreme Court for the first time pointed out the phenomenon and laid down certain test to single out such vexatious suits and entrusted the courts with a duty to terminate such proceedings at the earliest. The Hon’ble Court held that if upon a meaningful-not formal- reading of the Plaint it appears to be a manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the courts are duty bound to exercise their power under order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. It further held that if an illusion of cause of action has been created by clever drafting, the courts should nip it in the bud at the first hearing by searchingly examining the litigant under order X CPC. The same opinion was also upheld in the case of Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Assn., (2005) 7 SCC 510.
The provision of Order VII Rule 11 is an enabling provision in the sense that the courts are at discretion to apply their judicial mind and see to it that the judicious tome of courts are not wasted by way of a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive, should not be permitted to waste judicial time of the courts. The whole purpose of conferment of such power is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of the Court, and exercise the mind of the respondent. This view point was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Azhar Hussain Vs Rajiv Gandhi 1986 Supp. SCC 315.
In the case of Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I & Anr, (2004) 9 SCC 512 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the test whether a cause of action is made out or not is to be found out from reading of the Plaint. The test is to read the plaint in its entirety and assuming it to be true, whether a relief could be granted or not.
In another very important pronouncement in the case of Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, (2020) 7 SCC 366, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Court must be vigilant against any camouflage or suppression, and determine whether the litigation is utterly vexatious, and an abuse of the process of the court.
Several like judgments have been pronounced by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the context of “Illusion of Cause of Action” by way of “Clever Drafting” and all the judgements casts a responsibility upon the courts to identify vexatious suits and empowers the courts to terminate such proceedings which appear to be manifestly vexatious by exercising power under order VII Rule 11 of the CPC but at the same time the court must remain cautious as the provision has a drastic outcome in the sense it may extinguish a litigants genuine right.
The judgements around “Illusion of Cause of Action” by way of “Clever Drafting” has a positive effect in the sense that a court and for that matter a defendant is enabled to see beyond the elaborate narrations, selective pleadings and concealment made in the plaint and may prefer an application on the ground that a cause of action is missing even though the Plaint may contain a “Cause of Action” paragraph.