In the realm of law, the term "jurisdiction" refers to the power and authority of a court to hear and adjudicate upon a matter. Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) in India elucidates the jurisdiction of civil courts. While the code does not provide a specific definition of jurisdiction, the term has been derived from the Latin phrase "juris dicto," meaning "I speak by law." Jurisdiction encompasses not only the power to hear a case but also the authority to render a definitive judgment or decision.

Meaning of Jurisdiction

The concept of jurisdiction has been developed by the judiciary through a series of cases. The case of Official Trustee v. Sachindranath established that jurisdiction involves not only the power to hear a matter but also the authority to adjudicate upon the questions at issue. Jurisdiction, therefore, extends beyond the mere ability to entertain a case to the power to render a final and authoritative decision.

Jurisdiction of Civil Courts under Section 9

Section 9 of the CPC states that civil courts have the jurisdiction to try all suits that are of a civil nature, except those suits in which cognizance is expressly or impliedly barred. To determine the jurisdiction of a civil court, two conditions must be satisfied:

1. The suit must be of a civil nature.
2. The cognizance of the suit should not be expressly or impliedly barred.

Suits of Civil Nature

A suit of civil nature refers to a suit that involves the rights and obligations of private individuals. The principal question in such a suit pertains to civil matters, such as property rights, restitution of conjugal rights, dissolution of marriage, rents, damages for civil wrongs, specific performance of contracts, and specific reliefs. However, it is important to note that suits purely involving questions of religious rites and ceremonies or caste-related issues are not considered suits of civil nature.

Cognizance Expressly or Impliedly Barred

Cognizance is said to be expressly barred when a statute or legislation specifically prohibits the court from entertaining a particular matter. For example, matters falling within the jurisdiction of revenue courts, consumer courts, rent tribunals, or income tax tribunals are expressly barred from the cognizance of civil courts. However, if the remedy sought by the plaintiff is inadequately provided by these tribunals, the jurisdiction of civil courts is not barred.

Cognizance is said to be impliedly barred when it is barred by general principles of law or when a particular remedy has been provided by statute, precluding the insistence of any other form of remedy. Additionally, certain suits may be barred on the grounds of res judicata or public policy.

Presumption of Jurisdiction

There is a strong presumption in favor of the jurisdiction of civil courts. Prima facie, it is inferred that the civil court in which a suit is instituted has the jurisdiction to try the suit. Any exclusion of the jurisdiction of a civil court should not be readily inferred. In the case of Bhatia Co-op Housing Society, it was held that a civil court has the inherent power to determine whether it has jurisdiction to entertain a matter. Even if no such plea is raised by the parties, it is the duty of the court to consider the bar of jurisdiction suo moto.

Case Laws Interpreting Section 9 of CPC

Several case laws have helped shape the interpretation of Section 9 of the CPC. These cases have provided insights into the principles and application of jurisdiction in civil courts.

Dhulabhai vs. State of MP (1968)

In this case, the Supreme Court held that when a state mandates that orders be final, civil courts with jurisdiction are prohibited from handling the case. However, such prohibitions are inapplicable when fundamental rules of judicial procedure have been disobeyed. The court also emphasized that the jurisdiction of civil courts cannot be ousted unless specific statutory provisions expressly or impliedly bar their jurisdiction.

The Secretary of State for India vs. Mask and Co.

The Privy Council, in this case, ruled that any judgment made by a court lacking jurisdiction is coram non judice, meaning it is null and void. The principle of estoppel, waiver, or res judicata does not apply to decisions passed by a court without jurisdiction.

State of A.P. vs. Majeti Laxmi Kanth Rao (2000)

The Supreme Court established a standard to evaluate whether the jurisdiction of civil courts should be excluded. Firstly, there must be a legislative intent to limit the civil court's jurisdiction, with solid justifications for the exclusion. Secondly, there must be an alternative remedy available to the claimant that provides functions similar to civil courts, such as the power to issue orders. If no alternative remedy is available, the jurisdiction of civil courts cannot be barred.

Hasham Abbas vs. Ussman Abbas

In this case, the court debated the legal standing of a judgment rendered by a court whose jurisdiction had been expressly or impliedly limited by a statute. The Supreme Court held that any judgment passed by a court lacking jurisdiction is null and void.

Conclusion

Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code outlines the jurisdiction of civil courts in India. A civil court has the authority to try all suits of a civil nature unless the jurisdiction is expressly or impliedly barred. The interpretation and application of jurisdiction in civil courts have been shaped by various case laws. It is important to note that civil courts have inherent power to determine their own jurisdiction and that there is a strong presumption in favor of the jurisdiction of civil courts. Any exclusion of jurisdiction should be carefully considered, and alternative remedies should be provided to ensure access to justice.

For the latest updates on legal education and related topics, visit Legalstix Law School.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice. Please consult with a qualified legal professional for specific legal concerns.