ABDUL GAFOORV. SENSMAL & ORS.
Preface
It's a corner
case in which the main question before the court was that whether an assignment
would give cause of action to the court where the assignment was made, though
else that courtwou!d have no governance to entertain the suit with respect to
the debt which was assigned.
Data
A plutocrat suit was filed by the complainants
SensmalSugarlal, who arenon-petitioners No. l and 2 in this modification
operation in the court of MunsifMerta.
Their case was
that the defendant Abdul Gafoor who's petitioner in this Court owed a debt to
defendantsNo. 2 and 3 who arenon-petitionersNo. 3 and 4 in this Court and that
he executed a document in their favour on FalgunSudi 5, Svt. 2005, whereby he
promised to pay off the debt in two instalments.
According to
the complainants, this debt was assigned by defendantsNo. 2 and 3 to them in
consideration of a cash quantum which they had attained from them.
The defendant-
supplicant covered the claim on several grounds. One of his expostulations was
that he and defendantsNo. 2 and 3 were all residers of Khejarla, that deals
between them had taken place at Khejarla and thus the MunsifMerta had no
territorial governance to try the case.
The complainants assertion was that the debt was
assigned to them by defendantsNo. 2 and 3 at Individ and thus the MunsifMerta
had clearly governance to entertain the suit
It isn't in
disagreement that Khejarla is beyond the governance of the MunsifMerta while
Individ is within the governance of that court.
Law involved
The applicable portion ofsec. 20 of the Civil
Procedure Code on which both the parties calculate runs as follows-Sec 20
(c)"subject to the limitations aforesaid every suit shall be introduced in
a Court within the original Limits of whose governance the cause of action,
wholly or in part, arises."
Issues
Whether
assignment of a debt gives to a cause of action in part?
Arguments
From the side of complainant
It has been
prompted by learned counsel for the supplicant that his customer
andnon-petitionersNo. 3 and 4 are all residers of Khejarla, that the deals
between them took piece at Khejarla, that the debt, if any, was also
outstanding at that place and thus ifnon-petitionersNo. 3 and 4 had brought a suit
against the supplicant they couldn't file it in the court of Munsif, Merta.
It's prompted that by assigning the debt to the non pleadersNo. 1 and 2,
thenon-petitionersNo. 3 and 4 couldn't produce a new forum for this case.
According to learned counsel, the cause of action didn't arise within the
governance of MunsifMerta and thus he wasn't competent to entertain or decide
this case.
From the side
of Defendant
Thenon-petitioner on the other hand contends that
since the assignment of the debt took place at Individ within the governance of
the MunsifMerta, a part of the cause of action arose within the governance of
that court and thus undersec. 20 of the Civil Procedure Code the trial court's
decision about its governance is relatively correct.
What's “ Beget of Action”?
This term has
not been defined in the Civil Procedure Code itself. It has still been a
subject of interpretation in multitudinous cases, in some cases it has been
used in a defined sense and in others in a wider sense. In Halsbury's Laws of
England, Third Edition, Volume 1, runner 6, this expression has been explained
as follows-"the popular meaning of the expression'cause of action is that
particular act on the part of the defendant which gives the complainants his
cause of complaint. There may, still, be further than one good and effective
cause of action arising out of the same sale. Rigorously speaking"every
fact which is material to be proved to entitle the complainant to succeed,
every fact which the defendant would have a right to cut', forms an essential
part of'the cause of action', which"accrues"upon the passing of the
rearmost of similar data."
Analogous cases
HarnathraiBinjrajvs. Churamoni Shah
It was observed as follows-"it might have been
more satisfactory if the rule were elsei.e. that an attorney in taking an
assignment of a debt should take similar assignment with only similar right of
suing as the assignor had and could sue where the assignor could sue and
nowhere differently. I do see difficulties in the present system under which an
assignor can produce governance in any place where the Civil Procedure Code
applies but I don't suppose it would be right for me to essay to change
it."
This, in our
opinion, if we may say so with respect, is a more correct approach in interpreting
the law. In malignancy of visualising the vexation to the defendants it was
held in the said case that in a suit by an attorney the assignment of a debt is
a part of the cause of action
MohanlalJainvs.Madan!a!
A suit was
filed by an attorney of a claim innovated on account stated in jotting. Leave
was granted to the complainant under clause (18) of the Letters Patent to
institute the suit in the High Court of Calcutta. The defendants presented an
operation for cancellation of that rule. It was prompted before that Court that
no cause of action had arisen with the governance of that Court on account of
the assignment but the view expressed in Cookevs. Gill (4) and Hondvs. Brown
(4) was followed.
It was held that the cause of action for the purpose
of the governance of the court was an expression of wider import and that cause
of action had arisen at Calcutta on account of assignment. The judgment
appertained to a number of former opinions of that High Court and other High
Courts in support of the view taken therein. The aspirant's learned advocate
has not appertained to any after case of that High Court expressing a contrary
opinion.
RanapalliNagammavs. RanapalliSathiraju
It was held by
a Division Bench that an assignment of a promissory note by a payee is a part
of the cause of action within the meaning ofsec. 20 (c),C.P.C. and the attorney
can sue on it in the court having governance where the assignment took place.
In that case it was argued from the contrary side that the term'cause of
action'should be taken to mean the cause of action on the document sued upon
irrespective of the rights of the complainant under it, or in other words the
cause of action as it was when the right to sue on the note arose for the first
time and in that case the complainant's assignment won't be a part of it.
This argument
was repelled by the learned Judges It was observed by KrishnanJ. that"this
suggestion can not be accepted. The term has to be read with reference to the
suit introduced by the complainant, dealt with undersec. 20; it must also mean
complainant's cause of action,"
. Judgement
The authorities
of High Courts above in favour of the view that an assignment of a debt is
itself a part of the cause of action and thus a suit can be brought in the
court within whose governance the assignment has been made. They're of opinion
that the expression'cause of action'means all that pack of data which it would
be necessary for the complainant to prove, if covered in order to support his
right to the judgment of the court. In the case of assignment of a debt the
complainant will be bound to prove that the debt was assigned in his favour by
the assignor and thus the assignment is a part of the cause of action. It similar
assignment is made within the governance of a court that court would be
competent to entertain and decide the suit.
The contrary
opinion expressed in the case of Jupiter General Insurance Co,Ltd.vs. Abdul
Aziz gives a veritably defined meaning to the term" cause of action".
This term has been espoused from the EnglishLaw.However, it could define the
term consequently, If the council in India wanted to give it a different
meaning. Since it has not been defined in a different sense, it would be more proper
to given it the same meaning in which it has been understood and interpreted by
the learned Judges in England. The maturity of Judges in India have also
interpreted the term in the same sense and thus, we don't see good reasons to
depart from that view. In the first place, we don't suppose that an assignment
of debt would be made by a creditor and accepted by a transferee simply to kill
a debtor. Such a case, if any, would be veritably rare. Also, indeed if there
be some similar case, it's for the council to suppose about the remedy.
Thus, is that
in a suit brought by an attorney of a debt, the cause of action incompletely
arises because of the assignment of debt and thus the court within whose
territorial governance the assignment is made would be competent to entertain
and decide the suit subject course to the financial and other limitations..
The trial court
framed issue regarding its governance and decided it in favour of the
complainants.
Observation
This was a
corner case in which the main question before the judges was that whether an
assignment would give cause of action to the court where the assignment was
made, though else that courtwou!d have no governance to entertain the suit with
respect to the debt which was assigned. The judges through pertaining colorful
case laws came to the decision that the cause of action comes under the
governance of the court.
The judges also
came to the decision that in a suit brought by an attorney of a debt, the cause
of action incompletely arises because of the assignment of debt and thus the
court within whose territorial governance the assignment is made would be
competent to entertain and decide the suit subject course to the financial and
other limitations..
References:
https://www.lawyerservices.in/Star-India-Private-Limited-Versus-Leo-Burnett-India-Private-Limited-2002-09-24
https://enhelion.com/blogs/2019/06/08/star-india-private-limited-v-leo-burnett/
www.manupatra.com
0 Comments