CONCEPT OF JURISDICTION UNDER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

Section 6. Pecuniary jurisdiction: Save in so far as is otherwise expressly provided, nothing herein contained shall operate to give any Court jurisdiction over suits the amount or value of the subject-matter of which exceeds the pecuniary limits (if any) of its ordinary jurisdiction.

 Section 15. Court in which suits to be instituted: Every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it.

Section 16. Suits to be instituted where subject-matter situate: Subject to the pecuniary or other limitations prescribed by any law, suits-

(a)       for the recovery of immovable property with or without rent or profits,

(b)       for the partition of immovable property,

(c)       for foreclosure, sale or redemption in the case of a mortgage of or charge upon immovable property,

(d)       for the determination of any other right to or interest in immovable property,

(e)       for compensation for wrong to immovable property,

(f)        for the recovery of movable property actually under distraint or attachment, shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate:

 Provided that a suit to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immovable property held by or on behalf of the defendant, may where the relief sought can be entirely obtained through his personal obedience be instituted either in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate, or in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain.

Explanation. In this section "property" means property situate in India.

Section 17: Suits for immovable property situate within jurisdiction of different Courts: Where a suit is to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immovable property situate within the jurisdiction of different Court, the suit may be instituted in any Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situate:

Provided that, in respect of the value of the subject matter of the suit, the entire claim is cognizable by such Court.

Section 18. Place of institution of suit where local limits of jurisdiction of Courts are uncertain: (1) Where it is alleged to be uncertain within the local limits of the jurisdiction of which of two or more Courts any immovable property is situate, any one of those Courts may, if satisfied that there is ground for the alleged uncertainty, record a statement to that effect and thereupon proceed to entertain and dispose of any suit relating to that property, and its decree in the suit shall have the same effect as if the property were situate within the local limits of its jurisdiction:

Provided that the suit is one with respect to which the Court is competent as regards the nature and value of the suit to exercise jurisdiction.

(2) Where a statement has not been recorded under sub-section (1), and objection is taken before an Appellate or Revisional Court that a decree or order in a suit relating to such property was made by a Court not having jurisdiction where the property is situate, the Appellate or Revisional Court shall not allow the objection unless in its opinion there was, at the time of the institution of the suit, no reasonable ground for uncertainty as to the Court having jurisdiction with respect thereto and there has been a consequent failure of justice.

Section 19. Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables: Where a suit is for compensation for wrong done to the person or to movable property, if the wrong was done within the local limits of the jurisdiction of one Court and the defendant resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of another Court, the suit may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff in either of the said Courts.

Illustrations

(b)       A, residing in Delhi, beats B in Calcutta. B may sue A either in Calcutta or in Delhi.

(c)       A, residing in Delhi, publishes in Calcutta statements defamatory of B. B may sue A either in Calcutta or in Delhi.

Section 20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises: Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction-

(a)       the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or

(b)       any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or

(c)       the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

 [* * *]

Explanation. A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India or, in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place.

Illustrations

(a)       A is a tradesman in Calcutta, B carries on business in Delhi. B, by his agent in Calcutta, buys goods of A and requests A to deliver them to the East Indian Railway Company. A delivers the goods accordingly in Calcutta. A may sue B for the price of the goods either in Calcutta, where the cause of action has arisen or in Delhi, where B carries on business.

(b)       A resides at Simla, B at Calcutta and C at Delhi A, B and C being together at Banaras, B and C make a joint promissory note payable on demand, and deliver it to A. A may sue B and C at Banaras, where the cause of action arose. He may also sue them at Calcutta, where B resides, or at Delhi, where C resides; but in each of these cases, if the non-resident defendant object, the suit cannot proceed without the leave of the Court.

Section 21. Objections to jurisdiction: (1) No objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues or settled at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.

(2)           No objection as to the competence of a Court with reference to the pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity, and in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.

(3)           No objection as to the competence of the executing Court with reference to the local limits of its jurisdiction shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the executing Court at the earliest possible opportunity, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.

 21A. Bar on suit to set aside decree on objection as to place of suing: No suit shall lie challenging the validity of a decree passed in a former suit between the same parties, or between the parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, on any ground based on an objection as to the place of suing.

Explanation. The expression "former suit" means a suit which has been decided prior to the decision in the suit in which the validity of the decree is questioned, whether or not the previously decided suit was instituted prior to the suit in which the validity of such decree is questioned.

NOTES: -

Suits in Court of law relates to both movable and immovable properties. The suits may be based on matrimonial disputes, accounts, torts, contracts etc. 

Types of Jurisdictions: -

1.          Pecuniary,

2.          Territorial,

3.          Subject matter.

Presidency Court has no power to try cases of specific performance, succession and probate cases, matrimonial cases, insolvency cases are called subject matter suits.

In case a decree is passed by a Court of a higher grade it cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. As per section 99 it is merely irregularity and not a nullity.

Jurisdiction of the Court means competency to hear and adjudicate the cases. Consent of the parties can neither confer nor take away jurisdiction of a Court.

If the jurisdiction is related to territorial or pecuniary then the plaint is liable to be returned if it relates to the nature of the case then the suit is liable to be dismissed.

A suit for its maintainability requires no authority of law and it is enough that no statute bars it.

The power to create or enlarge jurisdiction is legislative in character so also the power to confer a right of appeal or to take away right of appeal. Parliament alone can do it by law and no Court whether superior or inferior or both combined can enlarge the jurisdiction of Court or divest a person of his rights of revision and appeal.

A defect of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and strikes at the authority of a Court to pass a decree. Such a basic and fundamental defect cannot be cured by consent of parties and the judgment or order passed by a Court however precisely certain and technically correct is null and void and the validity thereof can be challenged at any stage. A decree passed without jurisdiction is non-est and its validity can be set up whenever it is sought to be enforced as a foundation for a right even at the stage of execution or in collateral proceedings. In short, a decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a coram non judice.

Similarly, one cannot oust the jurisdiction of the Court by agreement being against public policy. But in case of two Courts have jurisdiction then by agreement the jurisdiction of one Court can be ousted.

There is always a distinction between want of jurisdiction and irregular exercise of it. Once it is held that the Court has got jurisdiction to try and entertain it then the correctness of the decision given cannot be said to be without jurisdiction as the power to decide necessarily carried with it the power to decide wrongly as well as rightly. In case of inherent lack of jurisdiction, the decree passed by a Civil Court is a nullity and that nullity can be set up in any collateral proceedings. However, if a Court has jurisdiction but it is irregularly exercised, the defect does not go to the root of the matter and the error if any in exercise the jurisdiction can be remedied in appeal or revision and when there is no such remedy or is not availed of, the decision is final.

The jurisdiction of Court should normally be decided on the basis of the case put forward by the plaintiff in his plaint and not by the defendant in his written statement.

The plaintiff however cannot by drafting his plaint cleverly circumvent the provisions of law in order to invest jurisdiction in Civil Court which it does not possess. It is also well established that in deciding the question of jurisdiction what is important is the substance of the matter and not the form.

Whether a Court has jurisdiction or not has to be decided with reference to the initial assumption of jurisdiction by that Court. The question depends not on the truth or falsehood of the facts into which it has to enquire or upon the correctness of its findings on these facts but upon their nature and it is determinable at the commencement not of the conclusion of the inquiry.

The Court is bound to decide it has jurisdiction or not.

It is well settled that it is for the party who seeks to oust the jurisdiction of a Civil Court to establish it.

In dealing with the question a Civil Court’s jurisdiction to entertain a suit is barred or not it is necessary to bear in mind that every presumption should be made in favour of the jurisdiction of a Civil Court. The exclusion of a Civil Court to entertain civil causes should not be readily inferred unless the relevant statute contains an express provision to that effect or leads to a necessary and inevitable implication of that nature.   

If the authority wrongly assumes existence, then writ of certiorari can be issued.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES: -

From various decisions of the Supreme Court, the following general principles relating to jurisdiction of a Civil Court have emerged: -

1.          A Civil Court has jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature unless their cognizance is barred either expressly or impliedly.

2.          Consent can neither confer nor take away jurisdiction, of a Court.

3.          A decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity and the validity thereof can be challenged at any stage of the proceedings, in execution proceedings or even in collateral proceedings. 

4.          There is a distinction between want of jurisdiction and irregular exercise thereof.

5.          Every Court has inherent power to decide the question of its own jurisdiction.

6.          Jurisdiction of a Court depends upon the averments made in a plaint and not upon the defence in a written statement.

7.          For deciding jurisdiction of a Court, the substance of a matter and not its form is important.

8.          Every presumption should be made in favour of jurisdiction of a Civil Court.

9.          A statute ousting jurisdiction of a Court must be strictly construed.

10.      Burden of proof of exclusion of jurisdiction of a Court is on the party who asserts it.

11.      Even where jurisdiction of a Civil Court is barred, it can still decide whether the provisions of an Act have been complied with or whether an order was passed dehors the provisions of law.

Section 6: -

Section 6 deals with pecuniary jurisdiction while sections 15 to 20, relates to jurisdiction of the Court. Section 21 deals with objections and 22 to 25 deals with transfer of suits.

As per section 6, pecuniary jurisdiction relates to the amount or value of the subject matter of which does not exceed the pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction. Some Courts have unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction like High Court has got no pecuniary limits. But there are Courts having jurisdiction upto a particular amount. 

Section 9: -

As per section 9 the Court to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.

If a Court has no jurisdiction to try the case it goes to the very root of jurisdiction and it is a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction. Plea as to want of lack of jurisdiction even can be raised first time before SC. Consent or failure to object cannot give jurisdiction where there is inherent want of jurisdiction. 

Section 15: -

The object of section 15 is to see that the Courts of higher grades shall not be overburdened with suits and to afford convenience to the parties and witnesses who may be examined in such suits. The Court can exercise their jurisdiction within their pecuniary limits. Value of the suit determines the jurisdiction.

A Court passing a decree for future mesne profits or for account can award an amount in excess of its pecuniary jurisdiction if found due upon taking of accounts. In a suit for accounts, the pecuniary jurisdiction is governed by the amount tentatively claimed by the plaintiff and such jurisdiction is not ousted if it is found that the plaintiff is entitled to an amount exceeding the Court’s pecuniary jurisdiction subject to payment of excess Court fee.  

If consolidation of two or more suits becomes necessary the Court does not become incompetent if the combined valuation goes beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court.

Prima facie it is the plaintiff’s valuation in the plaint that determines the jurisdiction of the Court and not the amount for which ultimately the decree may be passed by the Court.

Usually, a Court will accept a valuation of the plaintiff in the plaint and proceed to decide the suit on merits on that basis. In case the Court finds that the suit is so drafted as to oust the jurisdiction of a Court then the Court is duty bound to return the plaint.

Section 16 to 18: -

Every Court has its own local or territorial limits beyond which it cannot exercise its jurisdiction. These limits are fixed by the Govt. The Distt. Judge has to exercise its limits within its Distt. and the high Court has jurisdiction over its state. 

Type of Suits: -

For the purpose of territorial jurisdiction of Court suits may be instituted\divided into four classes for example suit for:

1.          Immovable property

2.          Movable property

3.          Compensation of wrong (Tort)

4.          Other suits.

Where the suit to obtain relief or compensation for the wrong to immovable property situate within the jurisdiction of different Courts, the suit can be filed in any of the Courts within the local limit of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situate. Suit can be filed anywhere, where any portion of the property is situated.

Proviso to section 16 is important: Section also provides that the suit must be within the pecuniary jurisdiction of such Courts. This provision is intended for the benefit of suitor and to prevent multiplicity of suits.

Section 18: -

Place of institution of suit where local limits of jurisdiction of Courts are uncertain.

1.          If there is an uncertainty with regard to the local limits of jurisdictions of the Courts of two or more places where the property is situate, any one of these Courts may, if satisfied that there is ground for such uncertainty, record the statement to that effect and thereupon proceed to entertain and dispose of any suit relating to that property and its decree in the suit shall have the same effect as if the property were situate within the local limits of its jurisdiction.

2.          Where the objection is taken before an appellate or revisional Court that a decree or order in a suit relating to such property was made by a Court not having jurisdiction where the property is situate, the appellate or revisional Court shall not allow the objection unless in its opinion there was, at the time of institution of the suit, no reasonable ground for uncertainty as to the Court having jurisdiction with respect thereto and there has been a consequential failure of justice.

Section 19: -

As per section 19 suit for wrong to person or movable property may be brought at the option of the plaintiff either at the places where the wrong is committed or where the defendant resides, carried on business or personally work for gain.

Where such wrong consist of series of acts, a suit can be filed at any place where any of the acts has been committed. Similarly, where a wrongful act is committed at one place and consequences ensue at another place, a suit can be instituted at option of the plaintiff where the action took place or consequences ensued.

Section 20: -

As per section 20 where there is more than one defendant, at the time of the commencement of the suit. Suit may be instituted at any Court where at the time of the commencement of the suit either of the defendants actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally work for gain.

Where there are two or more defendants any of them resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, provided that in such case (a) either the leave of the Court is obtained or (b) the defendant who do not reside or carry on business or personally work for gain at that place acquiesce in such institution.

Section 21: -

Objections to Jurisdiction.

As per section 21, No objection as to the place of suing (territorial jurisdiction) shall be allowed by any appellate or revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.

No objection regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court shall be allowed by any appellate or revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequential failure of justice.

No Objection as to the competence of the executing Court regarding the local limits of its jurisdiction shall be allowed by any appellate or revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the exceeding Court at the earliest possible opportunity and unless there has been a consequential failure of justice. 

For More Such Notes: Download CPC Notes Here