C.P.C. – Jurisdiction of courts.

Kinds of Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction: General: EDD: Entertain, Deal with & Decide

(TPJs)
Territorial: Courts own local or territorial limits - beyond
that limit no exercise of jurisdiction.
Limits fixed by the Government.-
No jurisdiction over immovable property situated beyond
its limits.

1
 C.P.C. : Jurisdiction ( Contd)

Pecuniary Jurisdiction Monetary jurisdiction.

 Some courts may have unlimited jurisdiction and some have
limited jurisdiction.
jurisdiction as to subject-matter:
Different courts, different types of suits
Ex: Presidency Small Causes Courts cannot try :
 (i) Suits for Specific Performance
 (ii) Partition of Immovable property
 (iii) foreclosure or redemption of a mortgage.
In respect of Testamentary matters, Divorce cases,
Probate Proceedings, Insolvency proceedings – District
Judge or Civil Judge (Senior Division) has Jurisdiction.
2
 C.P.C. : Jurisdiction ( Contd)
• Hierarchy of Courts
Supreme Court ( in the Capital)
High Courts (In States including Benches ) and
other Subordinate Courts in States.
Subordinate Courts (in other places)
 Subordinate Courts: In the rank of District
Judge, Subordinate Judge and District
Munsiff.( in some places called as Junior
Division)
3
 C.P.C. : Jurisdiction ( Contd)
• Pecuniary Jurisdiction: (In exercise of ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION):
• In Presidency Towns (Now called as Metros):
• High Courts: Above Rs. 30 Lakhs.
• City Civil Courts: Up to Rs. 30 Lakhs. Judges in the ranks of
• Small Causes Courts: Up to Rs. 1 Lakh. D.J., Subjects & D.M.

• In places other than Metros: For Superior Courts

 High Court: Above Rs. 2 Crores
 City Civil Courts: Up to Rs. 2 Crores.
 Small Causes Courts: Up to Rs.1 Lakh.

4
 C.P.C. : Jurisdiction ( Contd)
Pecuniary Jurisdiction (Contd):
(In respect of courts situate in Moffusil Places
other than Metros):
 District Court: Above Rs.10 Lakhs.
Sub-Judges’ Court: Rs. 1 Lakh to Rs.10 Lakhs.
District Munsiff’s Court: Up to Rs.1 Lakh.
N.B.: The total amount claimed by way of relief
is to be taken into account to invoke the
Pecuniary Jurisdiction of the court.

5
 C.P.C. : Jurisdiction ( Contd)
Jurisdiction – Principles.
Introduction:
 UBI JUS IBI REMEDIUM adopted by the Indian Legal system.
 Right and remedy are two sides of the same coin.
 Therefore, a litigant having a grievance of a civil nature has a right to
institute a civil suit in a competent civil court unless its cognizance is
either expressly or impliedly barred by any statute. A suit for its
maintainability requires no authority of law and it is enough that no
statute bars it.
MOST Rev. P.M.A. METROPOLITAN v MORAN MAR MARTHOMA,
AIR, 1995 SC 2001.
1. Jurisdiction and consent:
 Consent cannot confer nor take away jurisdiction of a court.
 In A.R.ANTULAY v R.S.NAYAK, AIR 1988 SC 1531 it has been
stated “The power to create or enlarge jurisdiction is legislative in
character, so also the power to confer a right of appeal or to take
away right of appeal. Parliament alone can do it by law and no
court, whether superior or inferior or both combined , can enlarge
the jurisdiction of a court or divest person of his rights of revision
and appeal”
6
 C.P.C. : Jurisdiction ( Contd)
Jurisdiction – Principles (continued)
Jurisdiction and consent: (continued):
 If the court has no inherent jurisdiction neither acquiescence no waiver
nor estoppel can create it. CHIRANJILAL v JASJIT SINGH, 1993 2
SCC 507.
 A defect of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and strikes at the
authority of a court to pass a decree.
 Such a basic and fundamental defect cannot be cured by consent of
parties and the judgment or order passed by a court, however precisely
certain and technically correct, is null and void and the validity can be
challenged at any stage. CHANDIRIKA MISIR v BHAIYA LAL, AIR
1973 SC 2391
 In short, a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a Coram
non judice. CHIEF ENGINEER, HYDEl PROJECT v RAVINDER
NATH, 2008 2 SCC 350.
 In KIRAN SINGH v CHAMAN PSWAN, 1955 1 SCR 117 the Supreme
Court observed ….”A defect of jurisdiction …strikes at the very
authority of the court to pas any decree , and such a defect cannot be
cured even by consent of parties”.

7
 C.P.C. : Jurisdiction ( Contd)
Jurisdiction – Principles (continued)
2. LACK OF JURISDICTION AND IRREGULAR EXERCISE OF
JURISDICTION:
 There exists a distinction between want of jurisdiction and irregular
exercise thereof.
 Once it is held that a court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide a
matter, the correctness of the decision given cannot be said to be without
jurisdiction in as much as the power to decide necessarily carries with it
the power to decide wrongly as well as rightly. RAJENDRA JHA v
LABOUR COURT, AIR 1984 SC 1696.
 In the words of Lord Hobhouse , “ A court has jurisdiction to decide
wrong as well as right. If it decides wrong. The wronged party can only
take he course prescribed by law for setting matters right, and if that
course is not taken, the decision, however wrong, cannot be disturbed”
 In ITTYAVIRA MATHAI MATHAI v VARKEY VARKEY, AIR1964 SC 907
the Supreme Court observed: …If the party aggrieved does not take
appropriate steps to have that error corrected, the erroneous decree will
hold good and will not be open to challenge on the basis of being a nullity”.
8
 C.P.C. : Jurisdiction ( Contd)
Jurisdiction – Principles (continued)
2. LACK OF JURISDICTION AND IRREGULAR EXERCISE OF
JURISDICTION:
 A question about the distinction between absence of jurisdiction and
erroneous or irregular exercise thereof has to be answered.
 After the landmark decision in ANISMINIC LTD., v FOREIGN
COMPENSATION COMMISSION, 1969 2 AC 147 HL the legal
position has been considerably changed. It virtually assimilated the
distinction between jurisdictional error and erroneous exercise thereof.
 As observed in M.L.SETHI v R.P.KAPUR, AIR 1972 SC 2379, the
difference between jurisdictional error and error of law within
jurisdiction has been reduced almost to a vanishing point. The court
observed: “ ‘After ANISMINIC every error of law is a jurisdictional
error ..The distinction between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional
error is ultimately based upon a foundation of sand. Much of the
superstructure has already been crumbled. What remains is likely
quickly to fall away as the courts rightly insist that all administrative
actions should be simply lawful whether or not jurisdictionally lawful”

9
 C.P.C. : Jurisdiction ( Contd)
Jurisdiction – Principles (continued)
Basis to determine jurisdiction:
 To decide the jurisdiction of a civil court , the averments made in the
plaint are material.
 In other words jurisdiction is to be decided based on the case put
forward by the plaintiff in his plaint and not by the defendants in his
written statement.
 In ABDULLAH v GALAPPA, AIR 1985 SC 577, the plaintiff filed a
suit in the civil court for declaration of title and for possession and
mesne profits treating the defendants as trespassers. The defendants
contended that the civil court has no jurisdiction since he was a tenant.
Negativing the contention of the defendants, the Supreme Court
observed:” There is no denying the fact that the allegations made in the
plaint decide the forum…A suit against the trespasser would lie only in
the civil court and not in the Revenue Court…..We are, therefore, of
the considered opinion that on the allegations made in the plaint the
suit was cognizable by the Civil Court”.
 This principle has also been followed in BEGUM SAHIBA v NAWAB
MOHD. MANSUR, AIR 2007 Sc 1636.
10
 C.P.C. : Jurisdiction ( Contd)
Jurisdiction – Principles (continued)
Basis to determine jurisdiction (continued):
 But the plaintiff cannot by drafting his plaint cleverly circumvent the
provisions of law in order to invest jurisdiction in civil court which it did
nit possess. ONGC v UTPA KUNAR BASU, 1994, 4 SCC 711.
 It is also well established that in deciding the question of jurisdiction, what
is important is the substance of the matter and not the form. BEGUM
SABHIA’s case referred above
 The above principle has also been affirmed in the case of BANK OF
BARODA v MOTI BHAI, AIR 1985 SC 545 holding …that ‘the main
relief sought by the bank was that the suit should be decreed for
repayment of the amount. The civil court had, therefore, jurisdiction to
entertain the suit filed by the bank. On the question jurisdiction, one must
always have regard to the substance of the matter and not the form of the
suit.”
 But when a Court of limited jurisdiction has jurisdiction to decide a
particular dispute it has jurisdiction to consider the collateral issue only
prima facie and the jurisdiction of the civil court to decide such issue
finally is not taken away. L IC v INDIA AUTOMOBILES & CO., AIR
1991 SC 884.
11
 C.P.C. : Jurisdiction ( Contd)
PLACE OF SUING (Sections 15-20)
SL.
NATURE OF SUIT PLACE OF SUING
NO.
Court of the lowest grade competent
1 Every Suit
to try it (Section 15)
Suits for
i. Recovery of;
ii. Partition of;
iii. Foreclosure, Sale or
redemption of mortgage
Court within whose jurisdiction the
of or charge upon;
2 immovable property is situate
iv. Determination of any
[Section 16 (a) to (e)]
other right to or interest
in;
v. Compensation for
wrong to immovable
property; 12
 C.P.C. : Jurisdiction ( Contd)

SL. NO. NATURE OF SUIT PLACE OF SUING

Recovery of movable property Court within whose jurisdiction the

3 under actual distraint or immovable property is situate [Section
attachment 16(f)]

i. Relief respecting; or
ii. Compensation for wrong to
Court within whose jurisdiction –
– immovable property held
i. The property is situate; or
by or on behalf of the
4 ii. The defendant resides, or carries on
defendant where the relief
business or personally works for gain
sought can be entirely
(Proviso to Section 16)a
obtained through his
personal obedience

13
 C.P.C. : Jurisdiction ( Contd)
SL.
NATURE OF SUIT PLACE OF SUING
NO.

i. Relief respecting ; or
Court within whose jurisdiction any
ii. Compensation for wrong to
portion of property is situate, provided
– immovable property
5 that the entire claim is within the
situate within the
pecuniary jurisdiction of such court
jurisdiction of different
(Section 17)
courts -

Where it is uncertain within Any of those courts, provided that the

the jurisdiction of which of court has pecuniary jurisdiction and
6
two or more courts any jurisdiction as regards the subject matter
immovable property is situate- of the suit (Section 18)

14
 C.P.C. : Jurisdiction ( Contd)
SL. NO. NATURE OF SUIT PLACE OF SUING

Compensation for wrong to –

i. Person, or
ii. Movable property – if the
wrong is done within the
jurisdiction of one court and In either of the courts at the option of the
7
the defendant resides or plaintiff (Section 19)
carries on business or
personally works for gain
within the jurisdiction of
another court -

15
 C.P.C. : Jurisdiction ( Contd)
SL. NO. NATURE OF SUIT PLACE OF SUING
i. Where the cause of action wholly or
partly arises; or
ii. The defendant resides, carries on
business or personally works for gain;
or
iii. Where there are two or more
defendants, where any one of them
8 Any other suit - resides, carries on business or
personality works for gain, provided
that –
a) Either the leave of the court is
obtained; or
b) The defendants, who do not reside,
carry on business or personally work
for gain acquiesce (Section 20)
16
 C.P.C. : Jurisdiction ( Contd)

Objections as to jurisdiction:
General Principle: Fundamental rule – A decree passed by
a court is a nullity.
 Does not apply to territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction.
 Objections to such jurisdiction are regarded by the Code as
merely technical and, unless raised at the earliest opportunity
they will not be entertained in appeal or revision for the first
time
HIRA LAL Vs KALI NATH, AIR 1962 S.C. 199.
Object underlying Section 21:
To protect honest litigants and avoid harassment to Plaintiffs
Who have bonafide initiated proceedings in a court which is
later on found to be wanting in Jurisdiction. Dishonest litigants
cannot take advantage of this provision.
ONGC v UTPAL KUMAR BASU, 1994 4 SCC 711
 C.P.C. : Jurisdiction ( Contd)
Objection as to territorial jurisdiction: Objection as to
local or territorial jurisdiction does not stand on the same
footing of a court to try the case.
 Competence to try a suit goes to the root of the jurisdiction
and where it is lacking it is an inherent lack of jurisdiction.
 An objection as to local jurisdiction can be waived and this
principle has been recognized by Section 21 of the Code.
 Once objection is waived subsequently will not be p[ermitted
to raise before revisional or appellate authority
Long and continued participation by the defendant without any
protest may, in appropriate cases, amounts to waiver of
objection. BAHREIN PETROLEUM CO. LTD. Vs
P.J.PAPPU, AIR 1966 SC 634.

18
 C.P.C. : Jurisdiction ( Contd)
Objection as to pecuniary Jurisdiction:
General principle: Plaintiff’s valuation in the suit
determines the jurisdiction of the court.
Decree may be passed by the court on this basis.
 If Defendant disputes the valuation, duty of the trial court is
inquire into it and pass an appropriate order.
 No objection as to overvaluation or undervaluation is
permissible before any appellate or revisional authority unless 3
conditions exist:1.Objection was taken in the court of First
Hearing.2. It was taken at the earliest possible opportunity and
in cases where issues are settled, at or before the Settlement of
Issues.3. There has been a consequential failure of Justice.
 All these three conditions must co-exist. PATHUMMA Vs
KUNTALAN KUTTY 1981 3 SCC 589
19
 C.P.C. : Jurisdiction ( Contd)
OBJECTION AS TO SUBJECT MATTER:
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is a condition precedent
or a sine quo non to the acquisition of authority.
 Court cannot proceed if it has no jurisdiction over the
subject matter.
 If done so a judgment given or order made or decree passed
is absolutely null and void..
Such an order can be set aside either in Appeal or Revision.
Its validity can be challenged even in collateral proceedings.
HARSHAD CHINNAN LAL Vs DLF UNIVERSAL
LTD.2005 7 SCC 791.

20
 C.P.C. : Jurisdiction ( Contd)
Objection in Execution Proceedings: Section 21 (3) makes it clear that
principles of this section apply to execution proceedings also.
 To be studied under two heads
 1) Prior to Amendment Act, 1976 and 2) After the Amendment Act 1976.
1) Prior to Act of 1976: Section as originally enacted did not, in terms, apply
to execution proceedings.
However, different opinions prevailed Therefore in HIRA LAL Vs KALI
NATH the Supreme court applied Section 21 to Execution proceedings.
2) After the Amendment Act, 1976: Specifically provides that an objection as
to territorial jurisdiction of a court executing the decree should not be
allowed unless the conditions laid down therein are fulfilled
BAR OF SUITS UNDER SECTION 21A: If a question relating to jurisdiction
cannot be able to be raised in Appeal or Revision proceedings can the
same be raised by way of a separate suit?
 Conflicting decisions were prevailing before the introduction of this
section 21 A.
 Now after the introduction of section 21A, through the Amendment Act,
1976 Act position is set at rest since the section specifically provides that
no substantive suit can be filed to set aside a decree passed by a court on
an objection as to the place of suing.
21
 C.P.C. : Jurisdiction ( Contd)
Section 9: Civil Courts to try suits of civil nature unless they are barred.
Conditions for application of this section: a) The suit must be of a civil nature and b)
The cognizance of such a suit should not have been expressly of impliedly barred
Meaning of Suit of Civil nature.:

The term ‘civil’ not defined in the Code.

 As per the Dictionary meaning it means that ‘it pertains to private rights and
remedies of a citizen as distinguished from criminal, political etc
.
The word ‘nature’ has been defined as ‘the fundamental qualities of a person or
thing, identity or essential character, sort, kind etc.’

Hence the term civil nature is wider than civil proceedings

.
Therefore, a suit is of a civil nature is the principal question therein relates to the
determination of a civil right and enforcement thereof. It is not the status of parties
to the suit, but the subject-matter of it which determines whether or not the suit is
of a civil nature.

22
 C.P.C. : Jurisdiction ( Contd )
•Nature and Scope:
 Expression ‘Suit of a civil nature will cover private rights and obligations.
 Therefore political and religious questions are not covered by that expression
 a suit in which the principal question relates to caste or religion is not a suit
of civil nature.
But if the pri8ncipal question is a suit of civil nature (the right to property or
to an office) and the adjudication incidentally involves the determination
relating to caste question or to religious rights and ceremonies it does not cease
to be a suit of civil nature and the jurisdiction of a civil court is not barred.

EXPLANATION I TO SECTION 9
The court has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon those questions in order to
decide the principal question which is of a civil nature. SINHA RAMANUJA Vs
RANGA RAMANUJA, AIR 1961 SC 1720.

Explanation II added by the Amendment Act 1976: Legal position clarified

That a suit relating to a religious office is maintainable whether or not it

carries any fees or whether or not it is attached to a particular place.

23
 C.P.C. : Jurisdiction ( Contd )
Doctrine Explained:
Concept explained in MOST REV.P.M.A. METROPOLITAN VS MORAN MAX
MARTHOMA, AIR 1999 SC 2001. ….”The Section would, therefore, be available
in every case where the dispute was of the characteristics affecting one’s rights
which are not only civil but of a civil nature.”
Suits of civil nature: Illustrations:
i) Suits relating to property
ii) Suits relating to rights of worship
iii) Suits relating to taking out religious processions.
iv) Suits relating to right to shares in offerings.
v) Suits for damages for civil wrongs.
vi) Suits for specific performance of contracts or for damages for breach of
contracts.
vii) Suits for Specific Reliefs.
viii) Suits for restitution of conjugal rights.
ix) Suits for dissolution of marriages.
x) Suits for rents.
xi) Suits for or on accounts
xii) Suits for rights of franchise.
xiii) Suits for rights to hereditary office.
xiv) Suits for Yajmanvritis.
xv) Suits against wrongful dismissals from service and for salaries etc. 24
 C.P.C. : Jurisdiction ( Contd
Suits not of civil nature: Illustrations:
i) Suits involving principally caste question Suits involving purely religious rites
or ceremonies
ii) Suits for up[holding mere dignity of honour
iii) Suits for recovery of voluntary payments or offerings
iv) Suits against expulsions from caste etc.

Cognizance not barred: Right to institute a suit should not be i) expressly barred or ii)
impliedly barred:

i) Suits expressly barred: When it is barred by any enactment for the time being
in force. CIT Vs PARAMESHWARI DEVI, AIR 1998 SC 1276.

 Open to a competent legislature to bar jurisdiction of civil courts with

respect to particular class of suits of a civil nature, provided that, in doing so, it
keeps itself within the field of legislature conferred on it and does not
contravene any provision of the Constitution. STATE OF VINDHYA
PRADESH Vs MORADHWAJ SINGH, AIR 1966 SC796.

25
 C.P.C. : Jurisdiction ( Contd)
 But every presumption should be made in favour of the jurisdiction of a civil
court and the provision of exclusion of jurisdiction of a court must be strictly
construed. DHULABHAI Vs STATE OF M.P., AIR 1969 SC 78.

 If there is any doubt about the ousting of jurisdiction of a civil court , the
court will lean to an interpretation which would maintain jurisdiction. (Case
Law as stated above)

 If in any case the remedy provided by a statute is not adequate and all
questions cannot be decided by a special tribunal, the jurisdiction of a civil court
is not barred. STATE OF T.N. Vs RAMALINGA SAMIGAL 1985 4 SCC10.

 Similarly when a court of limited jurisdiction prima facie and incidentally

states something , the jurisdiction of a civil court to finally decide the same is
not ousted. LIC Vs INDIA AUTOMOBILES & CO., 1990 4 SCC 286.

ii) Suits impliedly barred: Implied bar denotes barring of cognizance under
general principles of law.

When a specific remedy is provided by a Statute, it is said to deprive the

person of any other form of remedies other than the provided by the statute.
Refer LIC case Supra. 26
 C.P.C. : Jurisdiction ( Contd)
 Where an Act creates an obligation and enforces the performance in a specified
manner, that performance cannot be enforced in any other manner. PUNJAB S Vs
ASHWANI KUMAR, 1997 5 SCC 120.

 Certain suits are barred on the grounds of Public policy. SITARAM Vs

PIGMENT CAKES & CHEMICAL MFG. CO., 1970, 4 SCC 12.

The principle underlying is that a court ought not to countenance matters which
are injurious to and against the public weal. UNION OF INDIA Vs RAM CHAND,
AIR 1955 Punj 166

PRESUMPTION AS TO JURISDICTION: Should be made in favour of the 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 conclusion of that nature. GURBAX
SINGH Vs FINANCIAL COMMR. 1991, Supp (1) SCC 167 @ 175.

BURDEN OF PROOF: The party who seeks to oust the jurisdiction of the court
of a civil court is to establish the same.

27
 C.P.C. : Jurisdiction ( Contd)

EXCLUSION OF JURISDICTION; LIMITATIONS; LEGAL POSITION:

 …” A suit in a civil court will always lie to question the order of a tribunal created
by a statute, even if its order is, expressly or by necessary implication, made final if the
said tribunal abuses 8ts power or does not act under the Act but in violation of its
provisions” FIRM SETH RADHA KISHAN Vs ADMINISTRATOR, MUNICIPAL
COMMITTEE, LUDHIANA, 1964 2 SCR 273.

****

28