UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES, PU, CHANDIGARH

PROJECT REPORT ON PLACE OF SUING [SECTIONS 15-21]

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

DR. KARAN JAWANDHA KESHAV BANSAL
B.com. LL.B (H)
SEMESTER – VII
SECTION – C
143/15

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am overwhelmed in all humbleness and gratefulness to acknowledge my depth to all those who
have helped me to put these ideas, well above the level of simplicity and into something concrete.
I would like to extend my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher Dr. Karan Jawandha who gave
me the golden opportunity to do this wonderful project which helped me in doing a lot of research
and I came to know about so many new things.

Any attempt at any level cannot be satisfactorily completed without the support and guidance of
my parents and friends. I would like to thank my parents and friends who helped me in gathering
a lot of information, collecting data and guiding me from time to time in making this project,
despite of their busy schedules, they gave me different ideas to make this project good.

Dipankar Garg

2
 INDEX

Title Page No.

Cover Page 1
Acknowledgement 2
Introduction 4-5
Sections 15-21A 5-13
 Section 15 5-6
 Section 16 6-7
 Sections 17 and 18 8
 Section 19 9
 Section 20 9-11
 Section 21 11-13
 Section 21A 13

Bibliography 14

3
 INTRODUCTION
Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium - "Where there is a right, there is a remedy"
The fundamental principle of English Law that wherever there is a right, there is a remedy, has
been adopted by the Indian legal system. It means, whenever the rights of a person is infringed or
curtailed or the person is stopped by anyone in enjoying the rights so guaranteed to him, there must
be some judicial forum having authority to adjudicate on the matter and the rights so guaranteed
should be restored or compensated as per the case. So, the judicial forum must have jurisdiction to
deal with that matter. Jurisdiction generally means the power or authority of the court of law to
hear and determine a cause or a matter. There are basically three kinds of jurisdictions on the basis
of which the place of suing may be determined. These are-

 Pecuniary Jurisdiction
 Territorial Jurisdiction
 Subject-matter Jurisdiction1

Suits may be of different types. They may relate to movable properties or immovable properties;
they may be based on contracts or torts; they may be matrimonial proceedings, suits for accounts
and so on. The jurisdiction of a court to entertain, deal with and decide a suit may be restricted by
a variety of circumstances, and the first thing which is to be determined is the place of suing. The
expression ‘place of suing’ simply means the venue for trial and it has nothing to do with the
competency of the court.

Section 15 requires the plaintiff to file a suit in court of lowest grade competent to try it.

Sections 16-18 deal with suits relating to immovable property.

Section 19 applies to suits for compensation for wrong to person or movable property.

Section 20 is a residuary section and covers all cases not dealt by sections 15-19.

Section 21 recognizes the well-established principle that the defect as to territorial or pecuniary
jurisdiction can be waived.2

1
Retrieved from < http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1780/Jurisdiction-of-Civil-Court-and-Place-
ofSuing.html> on 24 September 2018 at 12:30 pm
2
Takwani, C.K. Civil Procedure, 8th Edition at p. 140

4
Conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function and it can neither be conferred with the consent
of the parties nor by a superior court and if a court having no jurisdiction passes a decree over the
matter, it would amount to a nullity, as the matter by-passes the correct route of jurisdiction. The
finding of a court or Tribunal becomes irrelevant and unenforceable once the forum is found to
have no jurisdiction. The Court cannot derive jurisdiction apart from the Statute. No amount of
waiver or consent can confer jurisdiction on the Court if it inherently lacks it or if none exists as
held in Vithal (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India3.

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 refers to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. The rule laid down in sec. 15 is a rule of
procedure and does not affect the jurisdiction of the court. Hence, a decree passed by a court of
higher grade cannot be said to be without jurisdiction as held in Gopal v. Shamrao45.

The object underlying this provision is twofold-

 to see that the courts of higher grades shall not be overburdened with suits, and
 to afford convenience to the parties and witnesses who may be examined in such suits.

Mode of Valuation – Prima facie, it is the plaintiff’s valuation in the plaint that determines the
jurisdiction of the court and not the amount for which ultimately the decree may be passed by the
court. Thus, if pecuniary jurisdiction of the court of lowest grade is, say, Rs 10000 and the plaintiff
files a suit for accounts wherein the plaintiff valuation of the suit is well within the pecuniary
jurisdiction of the court but the court finds on taking the accounts that Rs. 15,000/- are due, the
court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to pass a decree for that amount.

In leading case of Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan5 it was held that when a case had been tried
by a Court on the merits and judgment rendered, it should not be liable to be reversed purely on
technical grounds unless it had resulted in failure of justice. The policy of the Legislature has been

3
AIR 2005 SC 1891
4
AIR 1941 Nag 21
5
SCR 117

5
to treat objections to jurisdiction (both territorial and pecuniary) as technical and not open to
consideration by an Appellate Court, unless there has been a prejudice on the merits.

Power and Duty of Court – A plaintiff is not at liberty to assign any arbitrary value to the suit,
and to choose the court in which he wants to file a suit. If the plaintiff deliberately undervalues or
overvalues the claim for the purpose of choosing the forum, the plaint cannot be said to be correctly
valued and it is the duty of court to return the plaint as per Order 7 Rule 10 to plaintiff to be filed
in proper court. If the court is unable to come to a finding regarding the correct valuation of the
relief, the court has to accept the plaintiff’s valuation.6

Section 16 – Suits to be instituted where subject-matter situate.

Subject to the pecuniary or other limitations prescribed by any law, suits- (a)

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

(b) for the partition of immovable property,

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

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

(e) for compensation for wrong to immovable property,

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

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

Explanation - In this section “property” means property situate in India.7

6
Supra note 2 at p. 142
7
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

6
A suit merely for the recovery of rent from a lessee of immovable property cannot be said to be a
suit “for the determination of any other right to or interest in immovable property” under clause
(d) and therefore is not covered by section 16, C.P.C.8

The proviso to the section is an application in a modified form of a maxim of Equity, i.e. “Equity
acts in personam” recognized by Chancery Courts in England. The Equity Courts had jurisdiction
to entertain certain suits respecting immovable properties situated abroad through personal
obedience of the defendant. The principle on which the maxim was based was that courts could
grant relief in suits respecting immovable property situate abroad by enforcing their judgments by
process in personam, i.e. by arrest of defendant or by attachment of his property.

Where the property mortgaged as collateral security for loan advanced to defendant by a bank
situated at place ‘J’ then the suit for foreclosure by the bank can only be instituted before Civil
Court at place ‘J’ as held in Central Bank of India v. Eleena Fasteners (P) Ltd9.

In case of Harshad Chimanlal Modi v. DLF Universal Limited9, the plaintiff filed one civil suit
in Delhi High Court for recovery of possession of immovable property from the respondent based
on a contract which provided exclusive jurisdiction to the Delhi Courts. When the defendant filed
written statement, they accepted the jurisdiction. However, after a period of 8 years, the defendant
applied under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of written statement. They contended that
since the property was situated at Gurgaon, the Delhi HC has no jurisdiction to try the suit.
Accordingly, the plaint was ordered to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to proper Court
under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC.

Section 17 – Suits for immovable property situate within jurisdiction of different Courts.
Where a suit is to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to immovable property
situate within the jurisdiction of different 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.

8
Retrieved from < http://www.shareyouressays.com/knowledge/legal-provisions-of-section-16-of-code-of-
civilprocedure-1908-c-p-c-india/114414> on 24 September 2018 at 1:20 pm 9 AIR 1999 HP 104
9
(2005) 7 SCC 791

7
It is a well settled principle of law that consent can neither confer nor take away jurisdiction of a
competent court. The same principle applies to ouster the jurisdiction of a court. Where the court
has jurisdiction, neither consent, nor waiver, nor estoppel, nor acquiescence can oust it. An
agreement to oust absolutely the jurisdiction of a competent court is void, being against the public
policy (Ex dolo malo non oritur action).

But when two or more courts have jurisdiction to entertain a suit, an agreement by the parties to
submit to the jurisdiction of one of such courts to the exclusion of the rest is valid, binding and
enforceable as held in Laxman Prasad v. Prodigy Electronics Limited10.

Section 18 – Place of institution of suit where local limits of jurisdiction of Courts are
uncertain.

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

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

(2) Where a statement has not been recorded 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 no reasonable ground for
uncertainty as to the Court having jurisdiction with respect thereto and there has been a
consequent failure of justice.11

10
(2008) 1 SCC 618
11
Civil Procedure Code, 1908

8
Section 19 – Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables.

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

Illustration: A, residing in Delhi, publishes in Calcutta statements defamatory of B. B may sue A

either in Calcutta or in Delhi.

Section 20 – Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises.

Subject to the limitations, 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
commencement of suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or
personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of
the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for
gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants
who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, (c) the cause of action,
wholly or in part, arises.

Explanation – A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business as 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.

Illustration – A resides at Shimla, B at Calcutta and C at Delhi. A, B and C being together at

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

9
In case of Patel Roadways Limited v. Prasad Trading Company 12 , the Apex Court held that
Explanation to section 20 is divided in two parts. The first part of Explanation applies only to such
a corporation which has its sole or principal office at a particular place. In that event the courts
within whose jurisdiction the sole or principal office of the defendant is situate will also have
jurisdiction even if the defendant may not be actually carrying on business at that place, it will "be
deemed to carry on business" at that place because of the fiction created by the Explanation. And
the latter part of the Explanation takes care of a case where the defendant does not have a sole
office but has a principal office at one place and has also a subordinate office at another place. The
words "at such place" occurring at the end of the Explanation and the word "or" referred to above
which is disjunctive clearly suggest that if the case falls within the latter part of the Explanation it
is not the court within whose jurisdiction the principal office of the defendant is situate but the
court within whose jurisdiction it has a subordinate office which alone shall have jurisdiction "in
respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office.

In case of Indian Performing Rights Society Limited v. Sanjay Dalia and Anr.13, the head office
of the plaintiff-appellant was situated in Mumbai, while its branch office was located in New Delhi.
The plaintiff had filed a suit against the defendants in the Delhi High Court to enforce its IP rights.
The defendants owned cinema halls in Mumbai and across the state of Maharashtra; this was also
the place where infringement of IP rights was alleged by the plaintiff and the entire cause of action
had arisen.

Therefore, the defendants challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the court in Delhi. The Delhi
High Court upheld the defendants’ objection and held that the suit should have been filed at the
court in Mumbai. This order was appealed to the Supreme Court by plaintiff (IPRS). Usually,
under Section 20 CPC, a suit is to be instituted at a court within the local jurisdiction of which the
defendant actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain or
where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. The Supreme Court acknowledged that the
provisions of the Copyright Act and the Trade Marks Act (whereby the plaintiff can institute a suit
in the local jurisdiction of the court where the plaintiff resides or, where there are more than one
such persons, any of them actually and voluntarily residing or carrying on business or personally

12
AIR 1992 SC 1514
13
(2015) 10 SCC 161

10
working for gain) were special legislation that provided an additional forum to the plaintiff to
enforce its rights. The object of providing this additional remedy is to mitigate the inconvenience
caused to IP. However, the object of these provisions is not to enable a plaintiff to drag a defendant
to far-flung places across the country simply to harass the plaintiff. The Supreme Court, therefore
dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal. Interestingly, the submission by the plaintiff that “as the bulk of
IP litigation is filed at the Delhi court and most lawyers with IP expertise resided in Delhi, it would
be convenient for the parties to contest the suit in Delhi” was rejected by the Apex Court.

The Apex Court held that plaintiffs have the option of instituting the suit at a place where they
carry on business, this must be at place of principal office or where the cause of action has partly
or wholly arisen but not at any place of branch office where
no cause of action arises.

Section 21 – Objections as to jurisdiction.

(1) No objection as to 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 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.

Section 21 is a statutory recognition of the said principle and provides that the defect as to the place
of suing under sections 15 to 20 may be waived.

Objection as to territorial jurisdiction – It is well-settled that the objection as to territorial

jurisdiction of a court does not stand on same footing of a court to try the case. Competence of a

11
court to try a case goes to the very root of jurisdiction, and where it is lacking, it is a case of
inherent lack of jurisdiction. An objection as to territorial jurisdiction of court can be waived and
this principle has been recognized by Section 21 of the Code. In Hira Lal v. Kali Nath15, the suit
which ought to have been filed in Agra court was filed in the Bombay High Court with leave of
the court, it was held that the objection to such jurisdiction falls within section 21.16

Objection as to pecuniary jurisdiction – No objection as to overvaluation or undervaluation will

be allowed by any appellate or revisional court unless the following three conditions exist:

i. The objection was taken in the court of first instance;

ii. It was taken at the earliest possible opportunity and in cases where issues are settled, at or
before settlement of issues; and
iii. There has been a consequent failure of justice.

In Pathumma v. Kuntalan Kutty17, it was held by the Apex court that all these three conditions
must co-exist.

Objection as to competence of executing court – Section 21, as originally enacted did not apply
to execution proceedings. But in Hira Lal v. Kali Nath, the Supreme Court applied the principle
of section 21 to execution proceedings. With a view to avoid delay in execution proceedings, an
express provision has been made in the Code by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act,
1976, which specifically provides that an objection as to territorial jurisdiction of court executing
the decree should not be allowed unless the condition laid own therein are fulfilled.

In Malati Sardar v. National Insurance Company Limited18, the Calcutta HC set aside the award
of compensation given to family of the deceased by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal merely on
the ground that the Tribunal lacked territorial jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the
Tribunal has wide powers than a civil court and Section 21 of CPC must be interpreted in consistent
with the objective of providing remedies to the accident victims.

15
AIR 1962 SC 199 16
Supra note 2 at p. 148 17
(1981) 3 SCC 589
18
2016 SCC Online SC 2

12
Section 21A – Bar on suit to set aside decree on objection as to place of suing.

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

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

Section 21A specifically provides that no substantive suit can be filed to set aside a decree passed
by a court on an objection as to place of suing.14

14
Retrieved from https://www.legalindia.com/acts/topic/section-21a-of-civil-procedure-code-of-india on 25
September 2018 at 10:05 am
13
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
 Takwani, C.K, Civil Procedure, Eighth Edition, Eastern Book company, Lucknow.
 Singh, Dr. Avtar, Code of Civil Procedure, 4th Edition, Central Law Publications.
 www.scconline.com
 http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1780/Jurisdiction-of-Civil-Court-and-Place-
ofSuing.html
 http://www.shareyouressays.com/knowledge/legal-provisions-of-section-16-of-code-of-
civilprocedure-1908-c-p-c-india/114414
 http://studentlawnotes.blogspot.com/2012/12/place-of-suing-s15-to-21-cpc.html
 shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/12650/10/10_chapter%206.pdf
 www.indiankanoon.com
 https://www.legalindia.com/acts/topic/section-21a-of-civil-procedure-code-of-india

14