The expression
“Cause of action” perhaps is the most dynamic legal expression, embracing
diverse aspects. Remarkably, given the judicial meaning assigned to the
expression “Cause of action”, one may notice that the Cause of action is
“complete” at the “accrual” of Cause of action.
Therefore, the
“fact” (overt act of commission or omission) that triggered the Cause of action,
actually completes the “chain of events”; and proving of this solitary
“important fact” may entitle Plaintiff / Petitioners the Judgment.
Technically speaking, if this fact is proved, all other facts in the chain of events are deemed to have been proved. It may be appreciated that Cause of action is a bundle of facts; and these bundle of facts are not isolated or independent facts, but are a chain of events. The principle ingrained in section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872, may be of greatest assistance at every stage in the dispensation of justice.
I am convinced that
while arguing any case before Court, the Counsels should have a one page
(strictly one page) summary of the matter (and may be handed over to the
Court), that will tell the Court, as why the Reliefs should be granted or be
refused. That page may set out, (a) Reliefs prayed for; and (b) the bullet
points of grounds on which the Reliefs should be granted or be refused; with an
express request to the Court, to consider those grounds whilst recording
findings and passing Order. The failure of the Court in considering any of
those grounds may be regarded as failure in exercise of Jurisdiction, a specie
of Jurisdictional error.
Sandeep Jalan
Advocate
https://www.litigationplatform.com/
Comments