Y.A. AJIT versus SOFANA AJIT

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 808 · Decided: 07-09-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
Y.A.AilT 
v. 
SOFANAAJIT 
SEPTEMBER 7, 2007 
(DRARIJITPASAYAT ANDS.H.KAPADIA,JJ.) 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: s.24-Transfer petition-Allowed by 
High Court-On appeal, held: High Court to reconsider the matter. 
C 
Words and Phrases: Expression 'cause of action'-Meaning of 
In the present appeal, the appellant is challenging the order of High 
Court allowing the transfer petitions filed by respondent in terms of s.24 Code 
of Civil Procedure, 1908. 
D 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. While in civil cases, normally the expression "cause of 
action" is used, in criminal cases as stated in s.177 Cr.P.C., reference is to 
the local jurisdiction where the offence is committed. These variations in 
E etymological expression do not really make the position different. 
!Para 4) (8ll•A) 
1.2. 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 occasion for the action. 
In the wider sense, it means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of 
F the proceeding including not only the alleged infraction, but also the infraction 
coupled with the right itself. Compendiously the expression means every fact, 
which it would be necessary for the complainant to prove, if traversed, in order 
to support his right or grievance to the judgment of the Court. Every fact, 
which is necessary to be proved, as distinguished from every piece of evidence, 
G which is necessary to prove such fact, comprises in "cause of action". 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 for sitting; a factual 
situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in court from another 
person. In view of this, it is appropriate for the High Court to re-consider the 
II 
808 
). .. 
Y.A.AJITv.SOFANAAJIT[PASAYAT,J.] 
809 
matter. [Para 4 and 7) [811-D-G; 812-E) 
Y. Abraham Ajith and Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Anr., 
[2004) 8 sec 100, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4110 of2007. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.06.2004 of the High Court of 
Judicature at Madras in Transfer C.M.P. No. 12279 of 2004. 
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, Krishnan Nandakumar and T.G. Narayanan Nair for 
the Appellant. 
V.N. Raghupathy for the Respondent: 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR.ARIJIT PASAYAT,J. l. Leave granted. 
A 
B 
c 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the legality of judgment rendered by D 
a learned Single Judge of the Madas High Court allowing the transfer petition 
filed by the respondent in terms of Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 
1908 (in short the 'CPC'). By the transfer petition the respondent had sought 
for transfer of IDOP No.46 of 2003 pending in the Court of District Judge, 
Kanyakumari at Nagercoil to the Court of Family Judge, Chennai. The High E 
Court accepted the prayer. 
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that between the parties 
there was an earlier proceeding which came before this Court in Y. Abraham 
Ajith and Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Anr., [2004] 8 SCC JOO. 
It is submitted that in view of what has been stated in the said case the F 
impugned order cannot be maintained. Learned counsel for the respondent on 
the other hand supported the order of the High Court. 
4. In Y. Abraham Ajith's case (supra) it was, inter alia, observed as 
follows: 
"All crime is local, the jurisdiction over the crime belongs to the 
country where the crime is committed", as observed by Blackstone. 
G 
A significant word used in Section 177 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') is "ordinarily". Use of the word 
indicates that the provision is a general one and must be read subject H 
810 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 9 S.C.R. 
to the special provisions contained in the Code. As observed by the 
Court in Purushottamdas Dalmia v. State of West Bengal, AIR (1961) 
SC 1589, L.N.Mukherjee v. State of Madras, AIR (1961) SC 1601, 
Banwarilal Jhunjhunwalla and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr., AIR 
( 1963) SC 1620 and Mohan Baitha and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr., 
[2001) 4 SCC 350, exception implied by the word "ordinarily" need not 
be limited to those specially provided for by the law and exceptions 
may 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.