Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Jurisdiction

The term "jurisdiction" comes from two Latin words, "juris" (law) and "dicto" (to speak), literally
meaning "I speak by law." It refers to the power and authority of a court to hear and decide
cases, including suits, appeals, and applications.

It not only covers the subject matter of the case but also the geographical (local) and financial
(pecuniary) limits within which the court can operate.

Jurisdiction means the court's power to inquire into facts, apply the law, and render a judgment.
It encompasses the court's ability to try and determine a cause, ensuring justice is administered
according to legal standards.

A court with jurisdiction is termed "competent" because it has the recognized authority to handle
specific legal matters.

Halsbury's Laws of England: Jurisdiction is defined as the authority by which a court decides
matters litigated before it or takes cognizance of formal matters presented for decision. These
limits are defined by statutes, charters, or commissions under which the court operates, and they
can be extended or restricted by similar means.

If no restrictions are imposed, a court's jurisdiction is considered unlimited. Restrictions can be

related to the type of cases (nature of actions) or the geographical area over which the court's
authority extends, or both.

Jurisdiction is the legal authority granted to courts to hear cases and make decisions based on
the law. It includes the court's power to investigate facts, apply the law, issue judgments, and
enforce them, within defined local and financial boundaries. A court with jurisdiction is referred
to as "competent," highlighting its authorized capacity to resolve legal disputes.

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-1
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Granting Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction, which is the authority of a court to hear and decide cases, is granted by the
Legislature. The Legislature has the power to establish which courts have jurisdiction over specific
matters and to create new tribunals or authorities to handle particular types of disputes.

Exclusion or Ouster of Jurisdiction

The Legislature can also curtail the jurisdiction of civil courts and transfer it to other tribunals or
authorities. This is known as "exclusion of jurisdiction," "ouster of jurisdiction," or "bar on
jurisdiction." When this occurs, the specified civil courts can no longer hear and try disputes
related to the subject matter that has been excluded from their jurisdiction.

Example - Consumer Protection Act, 1986: The Act was enacted to provide better protection of
consumer interests. Section 9 of the Act created the following redressal agencies:

• District Forum in each district of a state

• State Commission in each state
• National Commission

Sections 11, 17, and 21 of the Act specify the jurisdiction of these agencies, making them the only
bodies authorized to hear and decide consumer disputes, thus excluding civil courts from these
matters.

Arbitration Act, 1996: This Act similarly restricts the jurisdiction of civil courts in favor of
arbitration tribunals for resolving disputes through arbitration processes.

Jurisdiction of Supreme Court and High Courts

The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts is established by the Constitution itself.
Their jurisdiction can only be altered (increased or curtailed) by amending the Constitution, not
through ordinary legislative acts.

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-2
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, AIR 1988 SC 1531,

The Court held that the power to create or to 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 à Court or divest a person of his rights of revision and appeal.

The Legislature is responsible for granting and curtailing jurisdiction to courts. It can exclude
certain matters from civil court jurisdiction, directing them to specific tribunals or authorities.
The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts, however, is governed by the Constitution
and can only be changed through constitutional amendments. This framework ensures that the
distribution of judicial authority is clearly defined and regulated.

Consent of Parties and Jurisdiction

It is a well-established legal principle that the consent of parties cannot confer jurisdiction upon
a court if it inherently lacks it. Similarly, consent cannot remove the jurisdiction of a court that
lawfully possesses it.

If a court lacks inherent jurisdiction, meaning it does not have the legal authority to hear a specific
type of case, no amount of agreement, acquiescence, waiver, or estoppel by the parties involved
can grant it jurisdiction. Jurisdiction must be established by law and not by the consent of the
parties.

Hakam Singh v. M/s Gammon (India) Ltd., AIR 1971 SC 740

The Court observed that it is not open to the parties to confer jurisdiction on any Court which it
does not otherwise possess under the Code by agreement. But where two courts have under the
Code of Civil Procedure jurisdiction to try a suit, an agreement between the parties that the
dispute shall be tried in one such Court is not contrary to the public policy: Such an agreement
does not contravene Section 28 of the Contract Act.

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-3
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340,

The Supreme Court observed that a defect of jurisdiction strikes at the very authority of the Court
to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties.

Multiple Courts with Jurisdiction

When two or more courts have jurisdiction to try a suit, the parties can agree to bring the suit in
one of those courts. This agreement is valid because there is no inherent lack of jurisdiction in
the chosen court. The choice is simply an exercise of selecting from multiple competent courts.

Defect of Jurisdiction

A jurisdictional defect, where a court lacks the authority to decide a matter, cannot be rectified
by the parties' consent. Any judgment or order passed by a court without jurisdiction is null and
void. This invalidity can be challenged at any stage, including during execution or collateral
proceedings, because it fundamentally undermines the court's authority.

Courts have consistently held that a defect in jurisdiction affects the very power of the court to
make any decree or order. Such defects are not curable by the agreement of the parties involved.
This principle ensures that judicial power is exercised within the limits defined by law,
maintaining the integrity of the legal system.

The principle that consent cannot confer or take away jurisdiction emphasizes that jurisdiction is
defined by law, not by the parties' agreement. A court must have inherent jurisdiction to hear a
case, and any agreement to grant or waive jurisdiction is ineffective if the court lacks this
authority. Jurisdictional defects render judgments and orders void, regardless of the parties'
consent.

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-4
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Lack of and Illegal Exercise of Jurisdiction

Courts possess the jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputes, whether right or wrong. If a court
makes an incorrect decision, the wronged party must follow the due procedures for correcting
such errors. If they fail to do so, the decision, no matter how erroneous, stands and cannot be
disturbed.

Nullity Due to Lack of Jurisdiction

A decree issued by a court that lacks inherent jurisdiction is considered a nullity. This means it is
legally void and can be challenged in any collateral proceedings. The lack of inherent jurisdiction
fundamentally undermines the court's authority to pass any decree.

Irregular Exercise of Jurisdiction

When a court has jurisdiction but exercises it irregularly, the error can be corrected through legal
procedures, such as appeal or revision. If the aggrieved party does not take appropriate steps to
correct the error within the prescribed legal framework, the erroneous decree remains valid and
enforceable. It cannot be challenged later on the grounds of being a nullity.

The court has inherent jurisdiction to decide whether it has the jurisdiction to hear a case when
its authority is challenged. This means that jurisdictional questions are initially determined by the
court itself based on the allegations made in the plaint, and not on the defense presented by the
defendants in their written statements.

A court can decide cases both rightly and wrongly, but its decisions stand unless legally
challenged and corrected. Decrees issued without jurisdiction are void, while errors in
jurisdictional exercise must be addressed through legal appeals or revisions. Jurisdictional
authority is determined by the court based on the plaint's allegations.

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-5
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Hiralal v. Kalinath, AIR 1962 SC 199

The Supreme Court held that it should be noted that there is a difference between inherent lack
of jurisdiction which goes to the root of jurisdiction or competence of a party to try a case and a
mere lack of territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction. An objection regarding lack of territorial or
pecuniary jurisdiction is merely technical and does not go to the root of the jurisdiction of the
Court to try a case. It is well settled that such objections can be waived by a party and are capable
of being cured by acquiescence, order of the Court or in other respects as provided by law. A
party subsequently be precluded from taking them, though consent and waiver cannot cure
inherent lack of jurisdiction.

Mathai v. Varkey, AIR 1964 SC 907,

The Supreme Court observed that lack of jurisdiction has to be distinguished with irregular
exercise of it. Lack of jurisdiction renders, a decision null and void but an exercise of by law.
jurisdiction in an irregular manner does not necessarily render the decision a nullity. When there
is irregular exercise of the jurisdiction the error can be remedied in appeal or revision. But if the
remedy is not availed of the decision becomes final.

Determination of Jurisdiction

It is the court itself that determines its jurisdiction. When jurisdiction is challenged, the court has
the inherent authority to decide whether it has jurisdiction to hear and decide a case.

The court's jurisdiction is usually determined based on the averments made in the plaintiff's
plaint, not on the defendant's written statement. This means the court initially looks at the claims
and facts presented by the plaintiff to decide its jurisdiction.

M.S. Hasnüddin v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 402:

The Supreme Court observed that a court must determine whether it has jurisdiction over a
matter when its jurisdiction is challenged. This determination is based on the initial assumption
of jurisdiction, decided at the commencement of the inquiry, not at its conclusion.

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-6
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Official Trustee v. Sachindra, AIR 1965 SC 823

The Supreme Court laid down the following principles, with regard to determination of
jurisdiction of a court:

(a) A Court can be held to have jurisdiction to decide a particular matter if the Court is
competent to try the suit and at the same time it has jurisdiction to pass the order sought.
(b) Jurisdiction of a Court must include the power to hear and decide the question in issue.

Basis to Determine Jurisdiction

Every court or tribunal is inherently responsible for determining its own jurisdiction. It must
decide if the matter before it falls within its legal authority. This self-assessment ensures that the
court does not overstep its boundaries.

Jurisdiction is primarily decided based on the claims (averments) made by the plaintiff in the
plaint. The court considers the plaintiff's allegations to ascertain whether it has the jurisdiction
to hear the case. The defendant's contentions in the written statement do not influence this
determination.

Plaintiff's Role

The plaintiff has the responsibility to choose the appropriate forum and file the suit. If the plaintiff
presents the case in a way that misrepresents the facts or seeks relief from a court that lacks the
authority to grant it, the suit will be dismissed. This ensures that the plaintiff's forum choice aligns
with the court's jurisdiction.

When the issue of jurisdiction pertains to territorial or pecuniary limits (geographical boundaries
or monetary thresholds), the court may order the plaint to be returned. This allows the plaintiff
to present the case to the correct court that has the appropriate jurisdiction.

The basis to determine jurisdiction involves an initial assessment by the court, considering the
plaintiff's allegations in the plaint. This process ensures that the court hears only those cases

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-7
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
within its legal authority, maintaining the integrity of the judicial system. If a suit is filed in an
incorrect forum due to jurisdictional issues, it may be dismissed or redirected to the proper court.

General Rule of Law

As per Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), civil courts have the jurisdiction to try all suits
of a civil nature unless specifically excluded by law, either expressly or impliedly. It is the
defendant who can challenge the court's jurisdiction, claiming that the suit is not maintainable
for lack of jurisdiction.

The objection must be raised at the earliest opportunity. If the defendant can show the court
lacks jurisdiction, the court will not proceed with the case, eliminating the need to contest the
matter on its merits.

If jurisdiction is not questioned at the trial stage and the court passes a decree, a superior court
may refuse to entertain jurisdictional objections later.

Jurisdiction is determined by the court itself, based on the plaintiff's claims in the plaint. Courts
must resolve jurisdictional questions at the outset of proceedings. Defendants can challenge
jurisdiction, but must do so promptly. The Supreme Court provides guidelines to ensure
jurisdiction is properly established before a court proceeds with a case.

Decision as to Jurisdiction

The determination of whether a court has jurisdiction is based on the initial assumption of
jurisdiction by that court. This means that the court's authority to hear a case is established at
the beginning of the proceedings, rather than at the conclusion.

Jurisdiction depends not on whether the facts of the case are true or false, or on the correctness
of the court's findings on those facts. Instead, it depends on the nature of the facts presented.
The court assesses its jurisdiction based on the allegations and claims made in the initial filings,
such as the plaintiff's plaint.

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-8
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The question of jurisdiction is to be determined "at the commencement, not at the conclusion
of the inquiry." This emphasizes the need for early resolution of jurisdictional issues, ensuring
that the court's authority is established before delving into the substantive aspects of the case.

Whenever the jurisdiction of the court is challenged, the court has the inherent jurisdiction to
decide the question of its own jurisdiction. This means that the court itself must determine
whether it has the legal authority to hear and adjudicate the matter before proceeding with the
case.

The decision regarding a court's jurisdiction is based on the initial assumptions at the start of the
case, considering the nature of the facts presented in the plaintiff's plaint. Jurisdiction must be
determined early in the proceedings, and the court has the inherent authority to resolve any
challenges to its jurisdiction.

Kinds of Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction of a court refers to its legal authority to hear and decide cases. Jurisdiction can be
classified into several categories based on different criteria

Jurisdiction Over Subject Matter

Certain courts are restricted by statute from hearing particular classes of cases. This is known as
subject matter jurisdiction.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court to hear and decide cases of a
particular type or category. This jurisdiction is determined by the nature of the relief sought in
the case, rather than the property involved.

The focus of subject-matter jurisdiction is on the type of relief or remedy being sought by the
plaintiff. It is the nature and value of this relief that determines which court has the authority to
hear the case.

Different courts are empowered by statute to handle specific types of cases. For instance:

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-9
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Small Causes Court can try suits for money due on an oral loan, under a bond or promissory note,
or for the price of work done. It does not have the jurisdiction to try suits for specific performance
of contracts, partition of immovable property, foreclosure or redemption of a mortgage, or
dissolution of partnership.

District Judge/Civil Judge (Senior Division) handles more complex cases such as testamentary
matters, divorce cases, probate proceedings, and insolvency proceedings.

Special Courts

In response to the increasing complexity of legal issues, specialized courts have been established,
such as Electricity Courts, Corporation Courts, and Consumer Courts. These courts are designed
to handle specific types of disputes efficiently.

Limited Jurisdiction Courts

A Rent Controller may have jurisdiction to decide on the fixation of standard rent. However, its
jurisdiction over collateral issues, such as the title of the landlord to the property, is limited to
prima facie consideration. The final determination of such issues remains within the jurisdiction
of a Civil Court.

In LIC v. India Automobiles, AIR 1991 SC 884, the Supreme Court clarified that while a court of
limited jurisdiction can address certain disputes, it cannot usurp the jurisdiction of Civil Courts
over related matters.

Subject-matter jurisdiction is determined by the type of relief claimed rather than the property
involved. Different courts are designated to handle specific types of cases, ensuring an organized
and efficient judicial system. Specialized courts address increasingly technical legal issues, while
courts with limited jurisdiction can only address certain disputes, leaving complex matters to be
decided by higher courts.

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-10
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Territorial Jurisdiction

Every court has its geographical limits, beyond which it cannot exercise its authority. The District
Judge can exercise powers only within their district.

Territorial Jurisdiction refers to the geographical boundaries within which a court can exercise its
authority. These boundaries are defined by the government and vary depending on the level of
the court.

Local Limits

District Judge: A District Judge has jurisdiction limited to the district for which they are appointed.
They cannot exercise their judicial powers beyond the boundaries of their district.

High Court: Each High Court has jurisdiction over the entire state or union territory within which
it is situated. The High Court cannot extend its jurisdiction beyond its prescribed territory.

Supreme Court: The Supreme Court of India holds jurisdiction over the entire country. Its
authority is not confined to any particular state or region.

Application of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)

Sections 16 to 18: These sections of the CPC deal with suits related to rights in immovable and
movable property.

Section 16: Suits regarding immovable property must be filed in the court within whose
jurisdiction the property is situated.

Section 17: When the immovable property in question is situated within the jurisdiction of
multiple courts, the suit can be filed in any of those courts.

Section 18: If the local jurisdiction is uncertain, the suit can be filed in the court where any portion
of the property is located.

Section 19: Covers suits for compensation related to wrongs to person or movable property.

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-11
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Suits for personal injuries or damages to movable property should be filed in the court within
whose jurisdiction the defendant resides or where the cause of action arises.

Section 20: Deals with all other suits not specifically covered by Sections 16 to 19.

General Rule: These suits can be instituted where the defendant resides, carries on business, or
where the cause of action arises.

Territorial or local jurisdiction defines the geographical limits within which a court can exercise
its authority, based on government-defined boundaries. District Judges are confined to their
districts, High Courts to their states, and the Supreme Court to the entire nation. The Code of
Civil Procedure details how suits related to property rights, movable property, torts, and other
matters should be handled within these geographical confines.

Pecuniary Jurisdiction

This type of jurisdiction is based on the monetary value of the case. courts have limited pecuniary
jurisdiction. For instance, the Presidency Small Causes Court cannot entertain suits where the
amount claimed exceeds Rs. 1,000. In Delhi, the District Court can hear cases up to Rs. 20,00,000.
In Rajasthan, Civil Judges have jurisdiction up to Rs. 25,000 or Rs. 50,000, while District Judges
and the High Court have unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction.

Pecuniary Jurisdiction refers to the financial limits within which a court can exercise its authority.
These limits are set by the government and determine the monetary value of the cases a court
can hear.

The pecuniary limits for each court are established by the government, varying across different
states and types of courts. These limits define the maximum and minimum values of the suits or
appeals that the court can entertain.

Throughout India, there are various grades of civil courts, each with its own pecuniary
jurisdiction. For example:

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-12
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Civil Judges (Junior Division) and Small Causes Courts typically handle cases involving smaller
monetary values. The specific pecuniary jurisdiction of Civil Judges (Junior Division) varies from
state to state.

Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC): This section stipulates that every suit must be
filed in the court of the lowest grade that is competent to try it. This principle ensures that cases
are heard at the appropriate level of the judicial hierarchy.

Section 6 of the CPC: According to this section, a court has jurisdiction only over suits where the
amount or value of the subject matter does not exceed its pecuniary limits. If a suit or appeal
exceeds these limits, the court cannot try the case.

Certain courts, such as High Courts and District Courts, have unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction. This
means they can hear cases of any monetary value without restriction. Other courts, however,
have specific pecuniary limits. For instance, a Presidency Small Causes Court cannot entertain
suits where the amount claimed exceeds Rs. 1,000.

If a court tries a suit or hears an appeal that exceeds its pecuniary jurisdiction, the adjudication
is considered void. The court does not have the authority to handle cases beyond its specified
monetary limits.

Pecuniary jurisdiction defines the financial boundaries within which courts can operate. These
limits ensure that cases are allocated to courts based on the monetary value involved,
maintaining an organized and efficient judicial process. Courts with unlimited pecuniary
jurisdiction, such as High Courts and District Courts, can handle cases of any value, while others
are confined to specific monetary thresholds.

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-13
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Original and Appellate Jurisdiction

Original Jurisdiction

The authority of a court to hear cases for the first time. The Munsif's Court and the Court of Small
Causes only have original jurisdiction.

Appellate Jurisdiction

The authority of a court to review and decide appeals from lower court decisions. The District
Judge’s Court and various High Courts have both original and appellate jurisdiction. The High
Court of Allahabad has limited original jurisdiction in matrimonial, testamentary, probate, and
company matters, and can exercise extraordinary jurisdiction to remove suits from subordinate
courts.

Writ Jurisdiction

High Courts and the Supreme Court have the authority to issue writs to enforce Fundamental
Rights. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, any person can apply to the High Court for writs in
case of violation of fundamental rights or other legal rights. Under Article 32, individuals can
approach the Supreme Court directly for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.

The writ jurisdiction of the High Court is extensive and can be invoked for the violation of any
legal right, not just fundamental rights.

Jurisdiction is a fundamental aspect of the legal system that defines the authority of courts based
on subject matter, territorial limits, pecuniary value, original and appellate capabilities, and the
power to issue writs. Understanding these categories helps in determining the appropriate forum
for legal disputes and ensures that cases are heard by courts with the proper authority.

Civil and Criminal Jurisdiction

Civil Jurisdiction: Courts with civil jurisdiction handle disputes between individuals,
organizations, or between individuals and organizations. These include cases related to property
disputes, contracts, torts, family law, and consumer disputes.
For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8
For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-14
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Criminal Jurisdiction: Criminal courts deal with offenses against the state or public. They handle
cases such as criminal offences, misdemeanors, summary offenses, and juvenile offenses,
prosecuting individuals or entities accused of crimes.

Exclusive and Concurrent Jurisdiction

Exclusive Jurisdiction: When only one court has the authority to hear and decide a particular
type of case, it has exclusive jurisdiction. For example, the Supreme Court of India has exclusive
jurisdiction over certain constitutional matters.

Exclusive jurisdiction refers to the sole authority granted to one particular court or tribunal to
hear, deal with, and decide a specific case or type of cases. No other court or authority can
intervene or render a judgment in these matters.

Only one court has the power to adjudicate a given case. Other courts cannot interfere or make
decisions on the same case. The Supreme Court of India has exclusive jurisdiction over certain
constitutional matters. Family Courts may have exclusive jurisdiction over divorce and child
custody cases within their jurisdiction.

Concurrent Jurisdiction: When more than one court has the authority to hear and decide the
same type of case, they have concurrent jurisdiction. For instance, both district courts and high
courts in the India can have jurisdiction over certain cases, allowing the plaintiff to choose the
forum.

Concurrent refers to the authority that can be exercised by different courts or authorities
simultaneously over the same parties, at the same time, and over the same subject matter.

Multiple courts have the power to hear and decide on the same type of case. It is open to a
litigant to choose which court's jurisdiction to invoke, providing flexibility in pursuing legal action.

Cases involving consumer disputes can be filed in Consumer Courts or other civil courts,
depending on the specifics of the case and the choice of the litigant.

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-15
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Exclusive Jurisdiction grants sole authority to one court to handle and decide specific cases,
ensuring that no other court can intervene. This is often seen in cases where specialized
knowledge or authority is required.

Concurrent Jurisdiction allows multiple courts to have the authority to hear and decide on the
same case, providing litigants with the flexibility to choose the most convenient or favorable
forum.

General and Special Jurisdiction

General Jurisdiction: Courts with general jurisdiction can hear a wide range of cases, not limited
to specific types of disputes. Examples include high courts and district courts.

Special Jurisdiction: Courts with special jurisdiction are restricted to hearing specific types of
cases, often defined by statute. Examples include family courts, juvenile courts, tax courts, and
consumer courts.

Legal and Equitable Jurisdiction

Legal Jurisdiction: Courts with legal jurisdiction can enforce the law based on statutory and
common law principles. They typically handle cases where monetary damages are sought. In
Common Law, decisions are made by interpreting and applying established laws, statutes, and
previous judicial rulings (precedents).

Legal jurisdiction is the authority exercised by Common Law Courts, traditionally seen in England.
These courts adjudicate based on statutory laws and legal precedents. Legal jurisdiction typically
involves awarding monetary damages as a remedy for wrongs or breaches.

Equitable Jurisdiction: Equitable jurisdiction allows courts to provide remedies other than
monetary damages, such as injunctions, specific performance, and reformation. These courts
apply principles of fairness and justice, often providing remedies that are not available in courts
of law. Equitable jurisdiction is the authority exercised by Equity Courts. Historically, these courts

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-16
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
addressed cases where legal remedies were insufficient, offering more flexible and fair
outcomes.

Principles of Equity: Decisions are guided by principles of fairness, justice, and conscience, rather
than strict adherence to statutory laws.

Non-Monetary Remedies: Remedies include injunctions (orders to do or not do something),

specific performance (compelling a party to fulfill a contract), and reformation (modifying a
contract to reflect true intentions).

Unlike England, where Common Law Courts and Equity Courts were historically separate, Indian
courts exercise both legal and equitable jurisdiction. This means that a single court in India can
provide remedies based on both legal principles and equitable considerations.

By integrating both types of jurisdictions, Indian courts can offer a more comprehensive approach
to justice, addressing legal rights and providing equitable remedies when necessary. In a
contractual dispute, an Indian court can award monetary damages (legal remedy) and also order
specific performance of the contract (equitable remedy) if it deems it fair and just.

Legal jurisdiction involves the authority to decide cases based on statutory laws and precedents,
typically offering monetary damages. Equitable jurisdiction, on the other hand, focuses on
fairness and justice, providing flexible remedies like injunctions and specific performance. Indian
courts, by exercising both legal and equitable jurisdiction, ensure a balanced and thorough
approach to justice.

Expounding and Expanding Jurisdiction

Expounding Jurisdiction: This involves interpreting and applying existing laws to cases. Courts
with expounding jurisdiction clarify the meaning of statutes, regulations, and constitutional
provisions through their rulings.

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-17
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Expanding Jurisdiction: This refers to the development and extension of legal principles to new
situations and contexts. Courts may expand their jurisdiction by establishing new legal
precedents or by interpreting laws in ways that address emerging issues.

Suit of Civil Nature

A suit of civil nature refers to a legal action where a litigant, having a grievance related to civil
matters, has the right to institute a suit in a competent civil court. This right is available unless
the court's jurisdiction is expressly or impliedly barred by any statute.

Right to Remedy is rooted in the principle of English law, which states, "Where there is a right,
there is a remedy," a civil suit can be initiated to seek justice and enforce rights.

For a civil court to have jurisdiction to hear a case, the suit must be of a civil nature. Although the
term "civil" is not explicitly defined in the Code, it generally pertains to private rights and
remedies of individuals, as opposed to criminal, political, or other types of cases.

The term "civil" relates to the community or governance of citizens and their private rights,
contrasting with criminal matters which involve offenses against the state.

The word "nature" refers to the fundamental qualities or essential character of something. Thus,
when we talk about a suit of civil nature, we are referring to its inherent qualities relating to
private rights and legal remedies.

The phrase "civil nature" is broader than "civil proceeding," encompassing a wide range of cases
involving the enforcement or protection of civil rights.

A suit is considered of a civil nature if its main question involves the determination of a civil right
and its enforcement. This means the primary issue at hand relates to the private rights of the
parties involved.

The determination of whether a suit is of a civil nature depends on the subject matter of the case
rather than the status of the parties involved. It is the type of claim and relief sought that
categorizes the suit as civil.

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-18
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
A suit of civil nature involves matters related to private rights and legal remedies, focusing on the
determination and enforcement of civil rights. This concept is broader than just civil proceedings
and emphasizes the subject matter of the dispute over the parties' status.

Meaning of "Civil"

The term "civil" relates to the community, governance, and administration of the citizens of a
state. It indicates a society structured under law and order, distinct from "criminal" which deals
with offenses against the state. Civil matters pertain to private rights and remedies, as opposed
to military, ecclesiastical, natural, or foreign domains.

Civil Action

Civil action involves presenting an issue for trial based on pleadings and averments. It can also
include new matters raised by defendants and adversary proceedings aimed at declaring,
enforcing, or protecting a right, or preventing or redressing a wrong. Typically, civil actions are
personal, aiming to compel payment, perform an obligation, or address purely civil issues.

Civil Proceedings

Civil proceedings encompass all legal processes that affect civil rights and are not criminal in
nature. These include rights to property or other civil rights, regardless of whether the court's
jurisdiction is ordinary, special, or extraordinary.

The main goal of civil proceedings is to establish or dispute civil rights. If a legal action is intended
to enforce or protect a civil right, it qualifies as a civil proceeding.

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-19
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 9 CPC

Section 9. Courts to try all civil suits unless barred. —The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction
to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.

[Explanation I]. —A suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of a civil nature, notwithstanding that
such right may depend entirely on the decision of questions as to religious rites or ceremonies.

[Explanation II]. —For the purposes of this section, it is immaterial whether or not any fees are attached to the office referred to
in Explanation I or whether or not such office is attached to a particular place.

A suit of civil nature is a legal action initiated to address grievances related to civil matters,
including rights to property, contractual disputes, tort claims, and other private rights. It is based
on the fundamental principle that there is a remedy for every right, emphasizing the structured
and orderly process of civil governance.

The term "civil" is not explicitly defined in the Code. However, its dictionary meaning pertains to
the private rights and remedies of a citizen, as distinguished from criminal, political, or other
domains. The term "nature" refers to the fundamental qualities, essential character, or identity
of a thing. Therefore, the expression "civil nature" encompasses a broader concept than just "civil
proceedings."

Key Points to Determine a Suit of Civil Nature

A suit is considered of a civil nature if the principal question involves the determination and
enforcement of a civil right. This means the primary focus is on resolving issues related to private
rights, such as property disputes, contractual obligations, and personal rights.

Whether a suit is of a civil nature is determined by its subject matter, not by the status of the
parties involved. The type of claim and the relief sought are crucial factors in this determination.

The expression "suit of a civil nature" includes any case that deals with private rights and
obligations of citizens. It does not cover political or religious questions. For example: A suit
relating to caste or religion is generally not of a civil nature.

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-20
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
However, if the principal question involves a civil right (like the right to property or an office),
and the resolution involves incidental determination of caste or religious rights, it remains a suit
of a civil nature.

Jurisdiction of Civil Courts

Civil courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate suits of a civil nature, even if resolving the principal
question requires incidental determination of matters related to caste or religious rights and
ceremonies. The primary criterion is that the central issue must pertain to a civil right.

Examples:

• A suit contesting the ownership or possession of property is of a civil nature.

• A suit seeking enforcement of a contractual agreement is of a civil nature.
• A suit involving the right to hold a certain office or position falls under civil nature, even
if it requires deciding on related caste or religious questions.

A suit of civil nature involves the determination and enforcement of private rights and remedies.
It is defined by its subject matter, focusing on civil rights such as property, contracts, and personal
obligations. Civil courts have jurisdiction over these suits, even if they involve incidental
questions related to caste or religion.

Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure

Section 9: This section of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) outlines the types of suits that civil
courts are authorized to entertain. It states that a civil court can entertain every suit of a civil
nature, except those which its cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred by any statute.

Two Conditions

(i) The suit must be of a civil nature.

(ii) The court's jurisdiction of the suit must not be barred (a) expressly by any statute, or (b)
impliedly.

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-21
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
If a suit meets these two criteria, civil courts are empowered to try it. If it does not, the court
cannot entertain the suit.

A plaintiff with a grievance of a civil nature has the right to institute a civil suit in a competent
civil court, unless its jurisdiction is barred by statute. This right is based on the fundamental legal
principle that there must be a remedy for every right (ubi jus ibi remedium).

The use of the word "shall" in Section 9 indicates that it is obligatory for a civil court to decide
disputes of a civil nature. This enforces the court's duty to address civil disputes within its
jurisdiction.

Classification of Suits

• Civil Nature: Suits involving the determination and enforcement of civil rights, such as
property disputes, contractual obligations, and personal rights.
• Non-Civil Nature: Suits that do not involve civil rights, and hence cannot be entertained
by civil courts.

Civil courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature, unless explicitly or impliedly barred.

Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma, 1995 SC

The word ‘civil nature’ is wider than the words ‘civil proceedings. The section would, therefore,
be available in every case where the dispute has the characteristic of affecting one’s rights which
are not only civil but of civil nature.

Dhulabhai v. State of M.P., 1969 SC

In dealing with the question whether 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 Jurisdiction 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.

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-22
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 9 of the CPC empowers civil courts to entertain all suits of a civil nature, ensuring the
enforcement of private rights and remedies. It obligates civil courts to address disputes contested
in good faith unless their jurisdiction is barred by statute. The determination of a suit's civil nature
depends on its subject matter, focusing on the enforcement of civil rights.

Suit Expressly or Impliedly Barred

A plaintiff with a cause of action of a civil nature generally has the right to file a civil suit in a
competent civil court. However, this right is subject to certain limitations. The court can only
entertain suits if its jurisdiction is not barred, either expressly or impliedly.

Expressly Barred Suits

A suit is considered "expressly barred" when it is prohibited by specific legislative enactments

currently in force. In other words, when a law clearly states that certain types of cases cannot be
heard by civil courts, these cases are expressly barred. Legislatures have the power to exclude
the jurisdiction of civil courts for particular classes of civil suits. Such as cases under the exclusive
jurisdiction of Revenue Courts, matters under the Code of Criminal Procedure and cases handled
by special tribunals created under specific statutes, such as: Industrial Tribunal, Election Tribunal.

This means that specific laws have been passed by a competent legislature explicitly preventing
civil courts from hearing certain classes of suits.

Competent legislatures have the authority to bar the jurisdiction of civil courts regarding
particular types of suits of a civil nature. However, this must be done within the scope of the
legislative powers conferred upon them and should not contravene any constitutional provisions.

Courts generally presume in favor of their own jurisdiction. Therefore, any statutory provision
excluding the jurisdiction of a court must be strictly construed.

If there is any ambiguity or doubt regarding the exclusion of jurisdiction, the courts tend to
interpret the law in a way that maintains their jurisdiction.

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-23
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
If the remedy provided by a statute is inadequate and cannot address all aspects of the dispute,
the jurisdiction of a civil court is not barred. Civil courts can step in to ensure comprehensive
justice.

Courts with limited jurisdiction may handle certain preliminary aspects of a case. However, this
does not bar the civil court's jurisdiction to make a final determination on the matter.

If a Rent Tribunal deals with the fixation of standard rent but does not have the comprehensive
authority to resolve related issues, a civil court may still have jurisdiction to make the final
decisions.

Suits are expressly barred when specific laws prevent civil courts from hearing certain cases.
Legislatures can exclude civil court jurisdiction, but provisions must be strictly interpreted. If
statutory remedies are inadequate, civil courts retain jurisdiction to ensure justice.

Impliedly Barred Suits

A suit is said to be "impliedly barred" when it is prohibited by general principles of law, even if
not explicitly mentioned in any statute. If a statute provides a specific remedy, it implies that
other forms of remedies are excluded. This means that individuals must follow the remedies
outlined in the statute, and cannot pursue alternate legal actions through civil courts.

Certain civil suits are barred on the grounds of public policy. For instance:

• A suit by a witness to recover money promised in exchange for testimony.

• Suits based on agreements that are void due to public policy reasons.
• Suits seeking damages against judicial officers for actions taken in the course of their
duties.

A suit is considered "impliedly barred" when it is prohibited by general principles of law, even if
not explicitly mentioned in any statute. This means that certain legal principles or doctrines
prevent the court from entertaining specific types of suits.

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-24
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
When a statute provides a specific remedy for a particular issue, it implicitly excludes other forms
of legal remedies. In other words, if the law outlines a particular method for enforcing an
obligation, that method must be followed, and no alternative legal action can be pursued in a
civil court. If an Act specifies that disputes should be resolved through arbitration, parties must
use arbitration rather than filing a suit in a civil court.

When an Act creates an obligation and specifies how it should be enforced, this enforcement
must occur in the prescribed manner, and not through other legal avenues.

Example: If a law mandates that certain disputes be handled by a specific tribunal, such as a Rent
Tribunal or Industrial Tribunal, then civil courts cannot hear these cases.

Certain suits, though of a civil nature, are barred by civil courts on the grounds of public policy.
Courts avoid matters that are detrimental to public welfare or against the public interest. Suits
enforcing rights under contracts voided by public policy (e.g., agreements forbidden by Section
23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872).

Political questions are outside the jurisdiction of civil courts and fall under the domain of public
administrative law. Civil courts do not have the authority to adjudicate disputes of a political
nature.

Example: Issues like electoral disputes, governance decisions, and other political matters are
typically handled by specific tribunals or administrative bodies, not civil courts.

Suits are impliedly barred when general legal principles or statutory provisions implicitly prevent
civil courts from hearing them. This includes cases where specific statutory remedies are
provided, enforcement methods are prescribed by law, matters are barred due to public policy,
or disputes involve political questions.

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-25
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Laxmi Chand v. Gram Panchayat, Kararia (AIR 1996 SC 233),

It was held that the scheme of the land Acquisition Act is complete in itself and thereby the
jurisdiction of the Civil Court to take cognizance of the cases arising under the said Act, by
necessary implication; stood barred.

A civil suit may be barred if it falls under categories expressly excluded by legislation or is
impliedly barred by legal principles or public policy. Understanding these restrictions helps
ensure that suits are filed in the appropriate forums, avoiding jurisdictional conflicts.

Explanation I to Section 9, CPC

If the principal or only question in a suit is related to caste or religious rites and ceremonies, it is
not considered of a civil nature because it does not deal with private rights of citizens but with
social matters.

A suit remains of a civil nature if caste or Religious Questions are incidental. These are not the
principal questions in the suit, but rather secondary issues. The main issue involves a civil right,
such as property rights or the right to hold an office.

The civil nature question cannot be resolved without addressing the caste or religious issues.

The court has the jurisdiction to decide on these caste or religious matters as part of determining
the principal civil issue.

If the main issue is about a right to property or an office, and resolving this requires deciding on
a caste question or religious ceremony, the suit is still of a civil nature.

In Sarda Kunar v. Gajanand (AIR 1942 All 320), the court held that it could decide on religious
rites or caste questions if necessary to resolve the principal civil issue.

The classification of a suit as civil or not is based on the subject matter, not the status of the
parties involved. This principle ensures that the focus is on the nature of the right being enforced
rather than who the parties are.

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-26
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Right to Worship: For instance, the right to worship in a religious place is a civil right and can be
contested in a civil court if it involves enforcing or protecting a private right.

A suit is of a civil nature if its main issue involves the determination and enforcement of private
rights, even if it incidentally involves caste or religious questions. The court has the authority to
address these subsidiary issues to resolve the principal civil question.

Explanation 2 to Section 9 of the CPC

Explanation 2 to Section 9 clarifies that the presence or absence of fees attached to an office
does not affect the civil court's jurisdiction over a suit. This means that a suit involving the right
to an office can still be considered of a civil nature, regardless of whether the office carries a
financial benefit.

Additionally, it is irrelevant whether the office is attached to a specific place. The geographical
association of the office does not impact the court's jurisdiction over a civil suit related to that
office.

Civil courts have the jurisdiction to hear suits involving rights to an office, irrespective of any fees
associated with that office. This ensures that disputes over office positions can be resolved in civil
courts, even if the office does not provide any monetary compensation.

A dispute over the right to hold a non-paid honorary position in a community organization is still
a matter of civil nature and can be tried in a civil court.

Whether an office is connected to a particular place is irrelevant to the determination of civil

court jurisdiction. This means that disputes involving rights to an office can be adjudicated by civil
courts, regardless of the office’s geographical ties.

Example: A suit concerning the right to a village headship, even if the office does not have a
specific designated location, falls within the civil court's jurisdiction.

Explanation 2 to Section 9 emphasizes that for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of civil
courts, the attachment of fees or the specific location of an office is immaterial. Civil courts can

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-27
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
entertain suits related to office rights, ensuring comprehensive access to legal remedies for such
disputes.

Presumption as to Jurisdiction

Concept of Presumption

When considering whether a civil court's jurisdiction to entertain a suit is barred, it is important
to remember that the presumption should always be in favor of the jurisdiction of the civil court.
This means that the default position is that civil courts have jurisdiction over civil matters.

The exclusion of a civil court's jurisdiction should not be easily assumed. It requires clear evidence
or statutory provisions to prove that the court's jurisdiction is barred. If a statute specifically
states that certain suits cannot be entertained by civil courts, this express provision must be
followed. In the absence of an express provision, jurisdiction can still be barred if the statute
leads to a necessary and inevitable implication that civil courts should not have jurisdiction over
certain matters. This means that, even without explicit wording, if the statute clearly implies that
jurisdiction is barred, it must be respected.

The legal principle is to favor the jurisdiction of civil courts. This ensures that civil disputes can be
addressed and resolved within the judicial system, promoting access to justice.

Example: If there's any ambiguity in the statute about whether a civil court can hear a case, the
interpretation should lean towards maintaining the court's jurisdiction.

Provisions that exclude the jurisdiction of civil courts must be strictly interpreted. This means
that unless there is clear and unambiguous language in the statute, the court should assume it
has jurisdiction.

If a statute does not clearly state that a civil court is barred from hearing certain cases, the court
should proceed with the assumption that it can hear the case.

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-28
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Express and Implied Bars

Express Bar: This is a direct prohibition by the statute. For instance, if a law specifically states
that disputes related to a particular matter must be resolved by a special tribunal, then civil courts
are expressly barred from hearing those disputes.

Implied Bar: This occurs when the overall purpose and content of the statute suggest that civil
courts should not have jurisdiction. This is more interpretative and depends on the context and
implications of the statute.

If a statute sets up a comprehensive framework for resolving specific disputes through

administrative bodies or special tribunals, this might imply that civil courts are barred from
entertaining such disputes.

The presumption as to jurisdiction emphasizes that civil courts should generally be assumed to
have jurisdiction over civil matters, unless there is a clear statutory exclusion. This principle
promotes judicial access and ensures that civil disputes are appropriately addressed within the
legal system.

Burden of Proof

Party Seeking to Oust Jurisdiction

It is well-established legal principle that the burden of proof lies with the party who seeks to
challenge or oust the jurisdiction of a civil court. This means that if a party argues that a civil court
does not have the authority to hear a particular case, they must provide convincing evidence and
legal reasoning to support this claim.

If a defendant in a case believes that the dispute should be resolved by a special tribunal rather
than a civil court, it is their responsibility to prove that the civil court lacks jurisdiction.

A statute that aims to exclude the jurisdiction of a civil court must be interpreted strictly. This
means that the language of the statute must be clear and unambiguous in its intent to limit or
exclude the court's jurisdiction.

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-29
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
If a law states that certain disputes must be handled by an administrative tribunal, this must be
explicitly stated in the statute. If there is any ambiguity, the interpretation should favor the civil
court's jurisdiction.

When a contention regarding the jurisdiction of a civil court is raised, it must be determined by
examining the exact wording of the relevant statute, the overall scheme and structure of its
provisions, and the purpose and objectives of the legislation.

Courts will analyse the specific language and context of the law to decide whether it indeed bars
the civil court's jurisdiction over the case in question.

In instances where there is doubt about the civil court's jurisdiction, the court should lean
towards the assumption that it has jurisdiction. This principle ensures that access to justice is not
unduly restricted by ambiguous statutory provisions.

If the language of the statute is not clear about excluding the civil court's jurisdiction, the court
should assume it has the authority to hear the case.

Civil courts have the inherent power to decide questions regarding their own jurisdiction. This
means that even if, upon inquiry, the court concludes that it does not have jurisdiction, it has the
authority to make that determination.

A civil court can conduct an initial examination of the jurisdictional objection and decide whether
it is competent to hear the case. If it determines it lacks jurisdiction, it can dismiss the suit or
return the plain to plaintiff.

The burden of proof to oust the jurisdiction of a civil court lies with the party making the
challenge. Statutes excluding civil court jurisdiction must be strictly interpreted. In case of doubt,
jurisdiction should be presumed in favor of the civil court. Civil courts have inherent authority to
determine their own jurisdiction.

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-30
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Exclusion of Jurisdiction

The general assumption is that civil courts have the jurisdiction to hear and try cases of a civil
nature. This means that unless a specific statute says otherwise, civil courts can handle these
cases.

Even without any statutory provision, a plaintiff with a civil case has the inherent right to initiate
a civil suit in a competent court unless its jurisdiction is expressly or impliedly barred as a general
rule is that civil court is competent to try all civil suits. The exclusion of a civil court’s jurisdiction
is not to be readily assumed.

In the case of Secretary of State v. Mask & Co., 67 IA 222: AIR 1940 PC 105 the Privy Council
emphasized that such prohibition must be clearly established either by express provisions or by
necessary implication.

Civil courts retain the jurisdiction to examine cases that do not comply with fundamental
principles of judicial procedure, ensuring that justice is upheld even if special tribunals or statutes
are involved.

The court needs to assess the reasons behind the exclusion and understand the legislative intent.

If the statute does not provide an adequate alternative remedy, the jurisdiction of the civil court
cannot be entirely eliminated. Civil courts continue to play a role where special tribunals or
statutes fall short in providing complete justice.

Balawwa v. Hasanab (2000) 9 SCC 272,

The jurisdiction of civil courts is restricted to the extent of support provided by the tribunal
established by statute. If a tribunal cannot address all issues comprehensively, civil courts retain
jurisdiction over those remaining issues. The Allahabad High Court has held that if only certain
parts of a suit are beyond the civil court's jurisdiction due to statutory exclusion, it does not mean
the entire suit is barred. Civil courts can still handle aspects not covered by the tribunal’s
authority.

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-31
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Civil courts retain their original jurisdiction to consider and decide suits that exceed the scope of
special tribunals. They can pass judgments on additional legal points that tribunals cannot
resolve.

There may be uncertainty about whether tribunals can issue orders on aspects of a trial where
civil court jurisdiction is obstructed. Civil courts may still have a role in addressing these issues to
ensure comprehensive justice.

The exclusion of civil court jurisdiction must be explicitly stated or necessarily implied by statutes.
Civil courts generally maintain their authority unless clearly barred, ensuring that litigants have
access to judicial remedies. The courts will also lean towards assuming jurisdiction in cases of
doubt, and their inherent power to decide their own jurisdiction helps maintain the integrity of
the judicial process.

Express or Implied Exclusion

Explicit Exclusion: This occurs when a statute directly states that civil courts do not have
jurisdiction over certain types of cases. These express provisions are clear and leave no room for
interpretation.

Example: A statute might explicitly state that labor disputes must be resolved by a Labor Tribunal,
thereby excluding civil courts from such matters.

Implied Exclusion: This occurs when the exclusion of jurisdiction is not directly stated but is clearly
implied by the structure, content, or purpose of the statute.

Example: A comprehensive statutory framework that provides a complete mechanism for

resolving specific disputes, such as tax disputes, might imply that civil courts are excluded from
hearing those cases.

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-32
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Secretary of State v. Mask & Co., AIR 1940 PC 105

The Privy Council in this case emphasized that exclusion of civil court jurisdiction should not be
easily inferred. It highlighted that there must be either an explicit provision in the statute or a
clear, necessary implication for the civil court's jurisdiction to be excluded.

M.P. Electricity Board, Jabalpur v. Vijay Timber Co. (1997) 1 SCC 68

This case further reinforces the principle that every presumption should be made in favor of the
existence of civil court jurisdiction rather than its exclusion. The court reiterated that unless a
statute explicitly or necessarily implies that civil court jurisdiction is excluded, the courts should
assume they have jurisdiction.

Courts generally start with the presumption that they have jurisdiction over a civil matter. This
means that unless there is a clear legislative or statutory directive stating otherwise, civil courts
are presumed to be the appropriate forum for hearing and deciding cases.

When interpreting statutes that might exclude the jurisdiction of civil courts, courts must adopt
a strict construction. This means the language of the statute must be clear and unambiguous in
indicating the exclusion of jurisdiction.

Example: If a statute is ambiguous or lacks clarity about excluding civil court jurisdiction, courts
will lean towards an interpretation that maintains their jurisdiction.

Legislative Intent and Purpose

Courts will look at the intent and purpose of the legislation to determine whether civil court
jurisdiction is meant to be excluded. This involves analyzing the language, scheme, and objectives
of the statute.

Example: A statute that establishes a specialized tribunal to handle specific disputes suggests an
intention to provide an alternative remedy and might imply the exclusion of civil courts.

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-33
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The exclusion of civil court jurisdiction must be explicitly stated or clearly implied by statute.
Courts favor the presumption of their own jurisdiction and adopt a strict construction approach
to exclusionary provisions. Legal precedents reinforce that civil courts should maintain
jurisdiction unless there's a clear legislative intent to exclude it.

Conditional Ouster

Conditional ouster refers to the exclusion of civil court jurisdiction under specific conditions or
circumstances as defined by statute. This means that the jurisdiction of civil courts is limited or
barred only when certain conditions are met. Indian law often includes statutes that specify
conditions under which civil courts' jurisdiction is ousted. These statutes may provide alternative
forums or tribunals for resolving specific types of disputes. Courts have interpreted these statutes
to determine whether the conditions for ousting jurisdiction have been satisfied in individual
cases.

Explicit Exclusion: When a statute explicitly states that civil courts are barred from hearing
certain types of cases, this is considered an explicit exclusion of jurisdiction.

Implied Exclusion: If the statute does not explicitly state the exclusion but implies it through its
structure, content, or purpose, this is considered an implied exclusion.

Courts generally presume that civil courts have jurisdiction unless there is a clear statutory
provision to the contrary. This means that the burden of proof is on the party seeking to oust the
jurisdiction to demonstrate that the conditions for exclusion are met. For an implied exclusion to
be valid, it must be necessary and inevitable based on the statute's language and intent. The
exclusion should be the only reasonable interpretation of the statute.

Conditional ouster of jurisdiction under Indian law means that civil courts' jurisdiction is limited
or barred only under specific conditions as defined by statute. Courts presume jurisdiction in
favour of civil courts unless there is a clear statutory exclusion. The exclusion must be explicit or
clearly implied, and necessary and inevitable based on the statute's language and intent.

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-34
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Principles Relating to Exclusion of Jurisdiction of Civil Courts

Principles Relating to Exclusion of Jurisdiction of Civil Courts. Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya

Pradesh, AIR 1969 SC 78 Chief Justice Hidayatullah outlined seven key principles for determining
when a civil court's jurisdiction is barred:

1. Finality and Adequate Remedy: If a statute gives finality to the orders of special tribunals
and provides adequate remedies, civil court jurisdiction is excluded. Exclusion does not
apply if the tribunal fails to follow fundamental judicial procedures.
2. Express Bar and Scheme Examination: An express bar in the statute requires examining
the Act's scheme to determine if remedies are sufficient. If no express exclusion exists,
the intent of the statute must be determined to decide if civil court jurisdiction is barred.
3. Ultra Vires Challenges: Tribunals cannot address challenges to a statute's
constitutionality. Only higher courts can address these challenges.
4. Declared Unconstitutional Provisions: When a provision is declared unconstitutional or
its constitutionality is challenged, a civil suit can be filed. Writs of certiorari can include
refund directions if claims fall within the Limitation Act's timeframe.
5. No Refund Machinery: If a statute lacks a mechanism to refund excess or illegal taxes,
civil suits are permissible.
6. Assessment Questions: Questions about the correctness of an assessment are decided
by authorities if their orders are final or there's an express prohibition. The scheme of the
Act is crucial for determining jurisdiction.
7. Inference of Exclusion: Exclusion of civil court jurisdiction is not inferred unless the
conditions above are met.

These principles help ensure civil court jurisdiction is only excluded under clear and necessary
circumstances, maintaining access to justice.

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-35
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Place of suing

General Scheme

Suits can be categorized into different types based on their subject matter. These include:

• Movable Properties: Suits involving personal property such as vehicles, jewelry, or other
personal belongings.
• Immovable Properties: Suits related to real estate, land, buildings, and other fixed assets.
• Contracts: Cases based on agreements between parties, including breaches and
enforcement of contracts.
• Torts: Legal actions arising from wrongful acts causing harm or injury to others, such as
negligence or defamation.
• Matrimonial Proceedings: Cases dealing with marriage-related issues like divorce, child
custody, and alimony.

Jurisdiction and Place of Suing

The authority of a court to entertain, deal with, and decide a suit can be restricted by various
circumstances, which means that not every court can hear every type of case is called Jurisdiction.

Place of Suing refers to the appropriate venue for trial and is unrelated to the competency of the
court itself. The "place of suing" is crucial in determining where a suit should be instituted.

Sections 15 to 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)

Section 15 - Court of Lowest Grade Competent to Try It: Every suit should be instituted in the
court of the lowest grade that is competent to try it. This principle ensures that cases are heard
at the appropriate level in the judicial hierarchy. This section mandates that a plaintiff must file
a suit in the court of the lowest grade that is competent to try it. This principle ensures that cases
are heard at the appropriate level within the judicial hierarchy, avoiding the burden on higher
courts with matters that can be handled by lower courts.

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-36
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 16 - Suits Relating to Immovable Property: Suits related to immovable property should
be instituted in the court within whose jurisdiction the property is situated. This provision
ensures that local courts handle real estate disputes. Section 16, CPC specifies that suits related
to immovable property should be filed in the court within the local jurisdiction where the
property is situated. This allows local courts to handle real estate disputes efficiently.

Section 17 - Immovable Property Situate within Jurisdiction of Different Courts: If immovable

property is situated within the jurisdiction of different courts, the suit can be instituted in any of
those courts. This allows flexibility in choosing the place to sue. Section 17, CPC addresses
scenarios where the immovable property is situated within the jurisdiction of different courts. In
such cases, the suit can be instituted in any court within whose jurisdiction any portion of the
property is located.

Section 18 - Place of Institution where Local Limits of Jurisdiction of Courts are Uncertain: When
local jurisdiction is uncertain, the suit may be instituted in the court where any portion of the
property is located. This provision addresses cases where jurisdictional boundaries are not clear.
Section 18, CPC provides guidance for situations where the local limits of court jurisdiction are
uncertain, allowing the suit to be instituted in a court where any part of the property is situated.

Section 19 - Suits for Compensation for Wrongs to Person or Movable Property: Suits for
personal injuries or damage to movable property can be filed in the court within whose
jurisdiction the defendant resides or where the cause of action arises. This section applies to suits
for compensation related to wrongs against a person or movable property. It allows such suits to
be filed in the court where the defendant resides or where the cause of action arises.

Section 20 - Other Suits to be Instituted where Defendants Reside or Cause of Action Arises:
Suits not specifically covered by Sections 16 to 19 should be instituted where the defendants
reside or where the cause of action arises. Section 20 serves as a catch-all provision, covering all
cases not specifically dealt with by Sections 15 to 19. It allows suits to be instituted in the court
where the defendants reside or where the cause of action arises, ensuring all types of cases have
a forum for resolution.
For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8
For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-37
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 21 - Waiver of Jurisdictional Defects: This section acknowledges that defects related to
territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction can be waived. It prohibits appellate or revisional courts from
allowing objections regarding the place of suing or pecuniary limits if such objections were not
raised in the initial proceedings.

Section 21-A - Bar on Setting Aside Decrees: This section bars the filing of a substantive suit to
set aside a decree passed by a court on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. This ensures
that decrees remain valid and enforceable, preventing unnecessary litigation over jurisdictional
technicalities.

The scheme of Sections 15 to 21-A of the CPC provides a structured approach for determining
the appropriate venue for filing suits. It ensures that cases are allocated to the correct level of
the judicial hierarchy and addresses issues related to territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction. These
sections work together to promote judicial efficiency and fairness in the administration of justice.

Pecuniary Jurisdiction

Pecuniary jurisdiction refers to the monetary limits within which a court can entertain and
adjudicate cases. These limits are set by the government and vary from state to state in India.

Types of Courts and Their Jurisdiction

Courts in India are divided into various grades with different pecuniary limits, creating a vertical
hierarchy. This ensures that cases are heard by courts appropriate to the amount of money
involved in the dispute.

Example - Delhi Courts:

• District Courts handle suits with amounts ranging from Rs. 1 crore to Rs. 2 crore.
• High Courts handle suits exceeding Rs. 2 crore.

The pecuniary jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court is governed by Section 5 of the Delhi High Court
Act, 1996, as amended by the Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 2015.

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-38
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 5(2), Delhi High Court Act, 1996, specifies that the Delhi High Court has original civil
jurisdiction for suits where the value exceeds Rs. 2 crore. The 2015 amendment raised the
pecuniary jurisdiction of District Courts in Delhi from Rs. 20 lakh to Rs. 2 crore.

Under the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High
Courts Act, 2015, the pecuniary limit for commercial disputes in Delhi High Court is reduced to
Rs. 1 crore.

Pecuniary jurisdiction limits differ from state to state. What applies in Delhi might not be
applicable in other states.

High Courts with Pecuniary Jurisdiction: Only certain High Courts, including Calcutta, Madras,
Delhi, and Bombay, have original pecuniary jurisdiction. Other High Courts only have appellate
jurisdiction, meaning all civil suits must first go to District Courts before any appeals are made to
the High Courts.

Section 15 of the CPC

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 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure mandates that suits should be filed in the court of the
lowest grade competent to try them. This ensures that cases are appropriately distributed within
the judicial hierarchy, preventing higher courts from being overburdened with minor cases.

Ingredients of Section 15, CPC

According to Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, every suit must be instituted in the court
of the "lowest" grade that is "competent" to try it. There are two key ingredients in Section 15,
CPC.

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-39
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Court of the Lowest Grade

This term refers to the court lowest in the hierarchy of the existing courts that has the authority
to try the case. It ensures that cases are initially brought before the appropriate level of court,
preventing higher courts from being overloaded with minor cases. For instance, if both a
Subordinate Judge and a Munsif have the jurisdiction to try a case (say for a rent recovery of Rs.
1,000), it must be filed in the Munsif's Court as it is the "court of the lowest grade" competent to
try the suit.

Competent Court

The term "competent" refers to a court's jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is the scope of a court's
authority to administer justice, considering the subject matter of the suit as well as the court's
local and pecuniary limits. The court must be competent to try the suit at the time of filing.
Subsequent changes in the value of the claim do not affect the court's jurisdiction over the case.

Court of Lowest Grade

The rule focuses on directing cases to the lowest court within the judicial hierarchy that can
competently adjudicate the matter.

Example: If a suit is appropriate for both a Subordinate Judge and a Munsif’s Court, the plaintiff
must file the suit in the Munsif’s Court as it is lower in hierarchy.

If a suit is filed in a court lower than competent to try it, the decree is null due to lack of
jurisdiction.

Section 15 directs suits to the lowest grade competent court to ensure judicial efficiency. It is a
procedural guideline, and errors in following it are considered irregularities, not jurisdictional
defects. Higher courts retain jurisdiction even if a suit could have been filed in a lower court,
while suits filed in courts without proper jurisdiction are null.

Section 15 of the CPC stipulates that every suit must be instituted in the court of the lowest grade
competent to try it. This rule ensures an efficient distribution of cases within the judicial

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-40
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
hierarchy, preventing higher courts from being overburdened with matters that can be handled
by lower courts.

The rule is procedural in nature, meaning it guides the process of filing suits but does not affect
the inherent jurisdiction of the courts. It aims to streamline the administration of justice by
directing cases to the appropriate level in the court system.

Even if a suit is filed in a court of a higher grade than specified by Section 15, this does not render
the court's actions without jurisdiction. The court still has the competency to hear and decide the
case.

Filing a suit in a higher-grade court than necessary is considered an irregularity rather than a
fundamental jurisdictional defect. According to Section 99 of the CPC, such procedural
irregularities do not invalidate the decree passed by the court. The decree remains valid and
enforceable.

Section 99, CPC - Addressing Procedural Irregularities

Section 99: This section of the CPC covers procedural irregularities, indicating that a decree shall
not be reversed or substantially varied due to procedural errors unless these errors have affected
the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the court. Thus, a decree passed by a higher-grade
court remains valid despite the procedural irregularity of not following Section 15.

By directing suits to the lowest grade court competent to try them, Section 15 promotes judicial
efficiency and proper case management. It ensures that cases are handled at the appropriate
level, freeing higher courts to deal with more complex or high-value cases. This section supports
the judicial hierarchy, maintaining an organized system where each court functions within its
designated scope, enhancing overall judicial effectiveness.

Section 15 of the CPC is a procedural rule directing suits to the court of the lowest grade
competent to try them. It ensures judicial efficiency but does not affect the inherent jurisdiction
of higher-grade courts. Irregularities in following this rule do not invalidate the court's decrees,
as covered by Section 99, ensuring that procedural missteps do not lead to unjust outcomes.
For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8
For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-41
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Pecuniary jurisdiction in India divides courts based on the monetary value of the cases they can
handle. These limits vary across states and are defined by specific statutes like the Delhi High
Court Act. Only certain High Courts have original pecuniary jurisdiction, while others serve only
appellate functions. Section 15 of the CPC ensures cases are filed in courts with suitable
jurisdiction, maintaining judicial efficiency.

Mode of Valuation

The jurisdiction of a court is determined by the valuation provided by the plaintiff in the plaint.
This means the amount mentioned by the plaintiff when filing the suit dictates which court has
the authority to hear the case.

The final amount decreed by the court after the trial does not affect the court’s jurisdiction. For
example, if the court of the lowest grade can hear cases up to Rs. 10,000, and the plaintiff files a
suit valuing it at Rs. 10,000, the court retains jurisdiction even if it later decrees Rs. 15,000.

A change in the forum does not automatically render a decree invalid if no prejudice is caused to
the parties involved. The courts focus on whether the procedural change impacts the fairness
and justice of the outcome.

The plaintiff’s valuation in the plaint determines the court’s jurisdiction, and the final decree
amount does not affect this jurisdiction.

Power and Duty of the Court in Valuation of Suits

Typically, a court will accept the valuation provided by the plaintiff in the plaint and proceed to
decide the case based on this valuation. This means the court relies on the plaintiff’s stated value
to determine its jurisdiction and the appropriateness of the forum for the suit.

Plaintiffs cannot arbitrarily assign any value to the suit to manipulate jurisdiction. The valuation
must be genuine and reflect the true nature of the claim.

If a plaintiff deliberately undervalues or overvalues the claim to choose a specific court, this
misrepresentation means the plaint is not correctly valued. It is the court's duty to return such a

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-42
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
plaint to be filed in the proper court. If the court suspects that the valuation is falsely made to
avoid the proper court’s jurisdiction, it can require the plaintiff to prove that the valuation is
correct. When there is an objective standard to determine the value, ignoring this standard can
result in an arbitrary and unreasonable valuation. The court is then entitled to intervene and
correct the valuation to ensure fairness and justice.

If the court cannot determine the correct valuation of the relief, it must accept the valuation
provided by the plaintiff. This ensures that the case can proceed without unnecessary delays due
to valuation disputes.

A court can pass a decree for an amount exceeding its pecuniary limits if the initial valuation falls
within its jurisdiction. This is based on the principle that once a court is seized of a matter, it
retains jurisdiction even if the final amount exceeds its pecuniary limits.

Example: If a court with a pecuniary limit of Rs. 10,000 accepts a suit initially valued at Rs. 10,000
and later determines the final decree to be Rs. 15,000, the court still has the authority to pass
the decree.

Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340: (1955) 1 SCR 117;

In this case, the plaintiff valued the suit at Rs. 2950, filed it in the Subordinate Judge's court, and
pursued appeals up to the High Court. The High Court revised the valuation to Rs. 9880.

The revised valuation meant the appeal should have directly gone to the High Court. The plaintiff
argued that the appeal to the District Court was invalid, but both the High Court and Supreme
Court upheld the decree, stating that the change of forum did not cause any prejudice.

Courts generally accept the plaintiff's valuation in the plaint, but they have the duty to correct
any arbitrary or false valuations. The court retains jurisdiction over a suit even if the final decree
exceeds its pecuniary limits. The case of Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan illustrates that a change
in the forum, if it does not cause prejudice, does not invalidate a decree.

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-43
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Territorial Jurisdiction: Types of Suits

Territorial jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court to hear and decide cases within a specific
geographical area. For the purpose of territorial jurisdiction, suits can be divided into four main
categories:

Suits in Respect of Immovable Property

These suits involve disputes related to real estate, land, buildings, and other fixed properties.
Such suits must be filed in the court within whose jurisdiction the immovable property is situated.
This ensures that local courts handle disputes relevant to their geographical area.

Suits for Movable Property

These suits concern disputes over personal property, such as vehicles, jewelry, machinery, and
other items that can be moved from one place to another. These suits can be filed in the court
where the property is located at the time of filing the suit, where the defendant resides, or where
the cause of action arises.

Suits for Compensation for Wrong (Tort)

These suits involve claims for compensation due to wrongful acts causing harm or injury, such as
negligence, defamation, or trespass. Such suits may be filed in the court where the wrongful act
occurred, where the harm was suffered, or where the defendant resides.

Other Suits

This category includes all other types of suits that do not fall into the above categories. Examples
include breach of contract, family law matters, or commercial disputes. These suits are typically
filed in the court where the cause of action arose, where the defendant resides, or where the
contract was executed or to be performed.

Different types of suits have specific rules about where they can be filed, based on the nature of
the dispute and the location of the involved parties or property.

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-44
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Sections 16 to 18: Suits Relating to Immovable Property

Section 16

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) or 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

This section lists five specific types of suits related to immovable property

• Suits for Recovery: These involve efforts to regain possession of immovable property.
• Suits for Partition: These deal with the division of immovable property among co-owners
or heirs.
• Suits for Foreclosure, Sale, or Redemption: These pertain to mortgage-related issues, such
as foreclosure or redeeming a mortgage on immovable property.
• Suits for Determination of Rights or Interests: These involve the determination of any
other rights or interests in the immovable property.

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-45
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
• Suits for Torts: These involve claims for damages due to wrongful acts (torts) affecting
immovable property.

Such suits must be filed in the court within the local limits where the property is situated. This
ensures that local courts handle disputes relevant to their geographical area.

Section 17

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 Courts, 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.

When immovable property is situated within the jurisdiction of multiple courts, a suit for relief
or damages can be filed in any court where a portion of the property is located, provided the suit
is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of that court. This provision benefits suitors by preventing the
need to file multiple suits in different courts, promoting judicial efficiency and consistency in
rulings.

Section 18

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 an 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.

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-46
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
If it is unclear which court has jurisdiction because the property is located in an area with
uncertain boundaries between jurisdictions, one of the courts may proceed with the case after
recording the uncertainty. This provision ensures that suits are not stalled due to jurisdictional
ambiguities.

For instance, if a piece of land straddles the border of two jurisdictions, the suit can be filed in
either jurisdiction to avoid duplicative litigation. In cases where the exact jurisdiction is unclear,
a court can take up the matter by formally acknowledging the jurisdictional ambiguity, ensuring
that the suit progresses without unnecessary delays.

Sections 16 to 18 of the CPC outline the rules for filing suits related to immovable property,
specifying that such suits must be filed in the local jurisdiction where the property is located.
These sections also address situations involving multiple jurisdictions or uncertain jurisdictional
boundaries, ensuring efficient and fair handling of property-related disputes.

Movable Property as per Section 19, CPC

Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) deals with suits relating to movable property and
compensation for wrongs (torts).

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

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

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

The principle "Mobilia sequuntur personam" means "movables follow the person." This implies
that for movable property, the legal actions can follow the person involved in the dispute.

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-47
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Types of Suits Involving Movable Property

• Wrong to Movable Property: A suit for wrong to movable property can be filed at the
plaintiff's discretion in one of the following locations:
Where the wrongful act occurred.
Where the defendant resides, conducts business, or personally works for gain.

Place of Wrong: If a wrongful act is committed in a specific location, the plaintiff can file the suit
there. Alternatively, the suit can be filed where the defendant resides, carries on business, or
personally works for gain. If the wrongful act involves a series of actions occurring in different
places, the suit can be filed in any of these locations. If the act is committed in one place and the
consequences ensue in another, the plaintiff has the option to file the suit either where the act
occurred or where the consequences ensued.

Illustrations

A, residing in Delhi, beats B in Calcutta.B can sue A either in Calcutta (where the wrong occurred)
or in Delhi (where A resides).

A, residing in Delhi, publishes defamatory statements about B in Calcutta. B can sue A either in
Calcutta (where the act occurred) or in Delhi (where A resides).

A, residing in Delhi, publishes defamatory statements in Calcutta, and the newspaper circulates
in Bombay, Madras, and Raipur. B can sue A in any of these locations—Calcutta, Delhi, Bombay,
Madras, or Raipur—depending on convenience and strategic considerations.

Suits for Compensation for Wrong (Tort)

Section 19 also addresses suits for compensation for wrongful acts (torts) to a person.

The plaintiff can file the suit either:

• Where the wrongful act was committed.

• Where the defendant resides, conducts business, or personally works for gain.

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-48
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 19 provides flexibility for plaintiffs in choosing the venue for filing suits related to wrongs
involving movable property or torts. Plaintiffs can select from multiple locations based on where
the act occurred, where the defendant resides or works, or where the consequences of the
wrongful act ensue, ensuring convenience and accessibility.

Other Suits: Section 20

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 a 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 works 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

Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)

This section provides guidelines for instituting suits that do not fall under the specific categories
mentioned in Sections 16 to 19 (which deal with immovable property, movable property, and
compensation for wrongs). Section 20 applies to all other personal actions.

Every suit must be instituted in a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction one of the
following conditions is met:

• Residence or Business of Defendant(s): The suit can be filed in the court where the
defendant resides, carries on business, or personally works for gain at the time the suit is
initiated. If there are multiple defendants, the suit can be filed in a court where any of the
defendants meet the above criteria. However, for defendants who do not meet the

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-49
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
criteria, either the leave of the court must be obtained, or those defendants must
acquiesce (agree) to the court's jurisdiction.
• The suit can also be instituted in the court where the cause of action, either wholly or in
part, arises. This means that if an event giving rise to the legal claim happens in a
particular location, the suit can be filed there.

Explanation to Section 20

A corporation is considered to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India. Additionally,
if a cause of action arises at a place where the corporation has a subordinate office, the suit can
be filed there as well.

Illustrations

A tradesman in Kolkata sells goods to B, who carries on business in Delhi. B's agent in Kolkata
requests delivery of the goods to the Railway Company in Kolkata. A can sue B either in Kolkata
(where the cause of action arose) or in Delhi (where B carries on business).

A resides in Shimla, B in Calcutta, and C in Delhi. In Banaras, B and C jointly sign a promissory note
payable on demand and deliver it to A. A can sue B and C in Banaras (where the cause of action
arose). Additionally, A may also sue B in Calcutta and C in Delhi. However, if either B or C objects
to the jurisdiction, the suit cannot proceed without the court's leave.

ABC Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, Salem, AIR 1989 SC 1239,

The Apex Court observed that where there may be two or more competent Courts which can
entertain a suit consequent upon a part of the cause of action having arisen agreed to vest
jurisdiction in one such Court to try the dispute which might arise as between themselves the
agreement would be valid. Hence, there can be no doubt that an agreement to oust absolutely
the jurisdiction of the Court will be unlawful and void being against the public policy. However,
such will be the result only if it can be shown that the jurisdiction to which the parties have agreed
to submit had nothing to do with the contract. If on the other hand, it is found that the jurisdiction

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-50
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
agreed would also be a proper jurisdiction in the matter of the contract it could not be said that
it ousted the jurisdiction of the Court.

Section 20 is a general provision that covers all personal actions, encompassing suits related to
persons or movable property not specifically dealt with in Sections 16 to 19. Plaintiffs have
flexibility in choosing the forum based on the defendant's residence, place of business, or where
the cause of action arose. Special consideration is given to corporations, allowing suits to be filed
where they have principal or subordinate offices if the cause of action is connected to those
locations.

Selection of Forum

It is a well-established legal principle that a court’s jurisdiction is inherent and cannot be

conferred or removed by the consent of the parties involved. This means that whether a court
has the authority to hear a case is determined by law, not by any agreement between the parties.
The consent of the parties cannot grant jurisdiction to a court that does not have it, nor can it
take away the jurisdiction of a court that does have it. Similarly, parties cannot use waiver,
estoppel, or acquiescence to alter a court's jurisdiction. These doctrines cannot prevent a court
from exercising its lawful jurisdiction.

Any agreement that aims to completely oust the jurisdiction of a competent court is considered
void because it is against public policy. The legal maxim Ex dolo malo non oritur actio means "no
action arises from deceit," reflecting that agreements contravening the law or public policy are
unenforceable. When two or more courts have concurrent jurisdiction over a matter, the parties
can validly agree to submit their dispute to one of these courts to the exclusion of the others.
Such agreements are valid, binding, and enforceable.

Illustration of Concurrent Jurisdiction

Suppose two parties enter into a contract that could be adjudicated in either Delhi or Mumbai,
as both jurisdictions have authority over the matter. They can agree to have any disputes settled
exclusively in Mumbai. Such an agreement would be valid and enforceable, as it does not oust

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-51
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
the jurisdiction of a competent court entirely but rather selects one competent court over
another. If the parties agree that no court has jurisdiction over their contract disputes, such an
agreement would be void. This is because it attempts to remove the legal recourse entirely, which
goes against public policy.

The selection of a forum within the legal system must respect the inherent jurisdiction of courts.
Agreements attempting to completely remove the jurisdiction of a competent court are void.
However, choosing among multiple competent courts is permissible and enforceable, ensuring
parties can manage their disputes within the framework of the law.

Jurisdiction as to Subject-Matter

Jurisdiction as to Subject-Matter refers to the authority of a court to hear and decide cases of
specific types or classes. Different courts are assigned jurisdiction over different kinds of suits
based on the subject matter involved. This jurisdictional demarcation ensures that cases are
handled by courts with the appropriate expertise and authority. Certain courts are specifically
empowered to handle particular types of cases. This specialization ensures that the cases are
decided by courts with the relevant legal framework and expertise.

Inherent Lack of Jurisdiction

When a court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of a suit, any decree passed, judgment
rendered, or order made by that court is inherently null and void. This means that the court’s
decision has no legal effect and is considered a nullity. The principle that underlies this is that a
court cannot adjudicate on matters beyond its legally defined scope, ensuring the legal process’s
integrity and fairness.

Plaintiffs must ensure that their suits are filed in the correct court that has jurisdiction over the
specific subject matter of their case. Failing to do so can result in the dismissal of the suit and a
null and void judgment. It is often advisable to seek legal counsel to determine the correct court
with jurisdiction over the specific type of suit.

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-52
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Examples:

Specific Performance: If a plaintiff seeks the specific performance of a contract, they must file
the suit in a court with jurisdiction over contract matters, not in a small cause court.

Divorce: A person seeking a divorce must file their case in a family court or a court with
jurisdiction over matrimonial matters, not in a civil judge (junior division) court.

Jurisdiction as to subject-matter ensures that different types of suits are handled by appropriate
courts. Specialized courts handle specific cases, and any action taken by a court without
jurisdiction over the subject matter is null and void. Properly filing suits in the correct court is
essential to ensure legal validity and enforceability.

Objection as to Jurisdiction

Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) addresses objections related to the jurisdiction of
courts, particularly regarding the place of suing, pecuniary limits, and local jurisdiction of
executing courts.

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 are 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.

General Principle

A decree from a court lacking jurisdiction is considered a nullity, meaning it has no legal effect.
As Halsbury states, if a court lacks jurisdiction due to statutory limitations, neither the

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-53
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
acquiescence nor consent of the parties can confer jurisdiction. This principle emphasizes that
jurisdictional authority must be legally conferred and cannot be established through agreement
or consent.

Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)

The primary purpose of Section 21 is to protect litigants who have, in good faith, initiated
proceedings in a court that is later found to lack jurisdiction. It aims to prevent undue harassment
and ensures that honest plaintiffs are not penalized for jurisdictional technicalities.

The provision does not allow dishonest litigants to take advantage of jurisdictional objections to
delay or disrupt proceedings.

Specific Objections Covered by Section 21

Objection to Place of Suing (Territorial Jurisdiction)

The objection must be raised in the court of first instance. It must be raised at the earliest possible
opportunity, typically before or at the time of issue settlement. There must be a consequent
failure of justice due to the jurisdictional defect.

Territorial jurisdiction can be waived if not promptly objected to, even if a suit is filed in the wrong
territorial jurisdiction with court leave, objections fall under Section 21, provided the conditions
are met.

Unlike the competence to try a case, an objection to the local jurisdiction of a court (the place
where a suit is filed) does not affect the court’s inherent authority to adjudicate the matter.
Objections to local jurisdiction are considered less fundamental and can be waived.

Section 21 of the CPC explicitly recognizes that defects regarding the place of suing (local
jurisdiction) under Sections 15 to 20 can be waived by the parties.

If a defendant allows a trial to proceed without raising an objection to the local jurisdiction and
takes the chance of a verdict in their favor, they effectively waive their right to object later. This
means they cannot subsequently challenge the court's jurisdiction on these grounds. Long and
For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8
For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-54
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
continued participation in the proceedings without any protest can amount to an implied waiver
of the objection to local jurisdiction.

Objection to Pecuniary Jurisdiction

The objection must be raised in the court of first instance. It must be raised at the earliest possible
opportunity. There must be a consequent failure of justice. Generally, the plaintiff’s valuation in
the plaint determines the court’s jurisdiction. If disputed, it is the trial court's duty to investigate
and determine the correct valuation.

Objection to Local Jurisdiction of Executing Court

The objection must be raised in the executing court at the earliest opportunity. There must be a
consequent failure of justice. Similar to territorial jurisdiction, local jurisdiction objections can be
waived if not timely raised.

Examples and Applications

A files a suit for property possession valued at Rs. 8000 in Court C with jurisdiction up to Rs.
10,000. The property’s market value is Rs. 12,000, but B does not object to the jurisdiction. The
decree is issued in favor of A.

Appellate Court: B cannot later raise an objection about Court C’s pecuniary jurisdiction since the
conditions for raising such objections were not met.

The Supreme Court in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan clarified that when a case had been tried
by a court on the merits and judgment rendered, cases should not be reversed purely on technical
jurisdictional grounds unless they result in a failure of justice. The policy of the legislature has
been to treat objections to both territorial and pecuniary jurisdictions as technical and not open
to consideration by an appellate court, unless there has been a prejudice on merits

Section 21 treats objections to territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction as technical issues unless
prejudice on the merits is demonstrated.

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-55
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

A court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit. If a court lacks this jurisdiction,
any judgment, order, or decree it issues is void and can be challenged in appeal, review, or
revision, and even in collateral proceedings.

Section 21 outlines that objections regarding territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction must meet
specific criteria to be entertained. The objections must be raised early, and there must be a failure
of justice. Subject-matter jurisdiction is critical and non-waivable, ensuring courts operate within
their defined legal boundaries.

Conditions for Entertaining Objections

For an objection related to jurisdiction to be considered by an appellate or revisional court, three

conditions must be met:

• The objection must have been raised in the court of first instance.
• The objection must have been raised at the earliest possible opportunity, typically before
or at the time issues are settled.
• There must be a consequent failure of justice due to the lack of jurisdiction.

Distinction Between Jurisdictional Issues - Pecuniary Jurisdiction vs. Inherent Jurisdiction

Lack of pecuniary jurisdiction is a procedural irregularity that can be waived, whereas inherent
lack of jurisdiction (e.g., subject-matter jurisdiction) cannot be waived and makes a decree void.

Section 21 ensures that objections related to the jurisdiction of a court are raised timely and that
any resulting decrees are not overturned without significant cause. It aims to balance judicial
efficiency with fairness and justice for litigants.

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-56
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

For Feedback click here: https://forms.gle/9uhcmbshVZCAhy9e8

For More Study Material, Visit: www.studyiq.com Page:-57