Introduction

Jurisdiction of a civil court provides us with an idea in which court we can institute a suit to have proper determination of rights. As goes by famous saying that wherever there is right, there is a remedy (ubi jus ibi remedium). The jurisdiction is derived from two Latin terms “juris” and “dicto” which means “I speak by the law”.

Identifying correct jurisdiction of a civil court is important before institution of civil suit. Therefore, the plaintiff must determine under which court, the suit must be instituted. As it is stated in Abdulla Bin Ali v. Galappa,[1] the jurisdiction of a civil court has to be decided on the allegations made by the plaintiff in the plaint and not on the allegations made by the defendant in the written statement.

 There are various kinds of jurisdiction of a civil court provided in CPC, these involve:

1. Pecuniary jurisdiction
2. Subject Matter jurisdiction
3. Territorial Jurisdiction
4. Original Jurisdiction
5. Appellate Jurisdiction

Among these jurisdictions, two or more jurisdictions are applied simultaneously at a time to choose which court to institute a suit. In this article, we will deal with the original jurisdiction of court only where a civil suit can be instituted along with jurisdiction mentioned in clause 1, 2 and 3.

Importance of jurisdiction

Jurisdiction of a civil court is essential in adequately determining rights of parties. A decree passed by court without jurisdiction is nullity.[2] The court with jurisdiction can determine right as well as wrong. It is open for a person to appeal if the court having jurisdiction decided it wrongly. If the party against whom the wrong judgment is decided does not prefer appeal, the judgment cannot be disturbed. This is power of court having jurisdiction. It is eloquently stated in case of Ittyavira Mathai Mthai v. Varkey Varkey,[3] the court observed that:

“If the suit was barred by time and yet, the court decreed it, the court would be committing an illegality and therefore the aggrieved party would be entitled to have the decree set aside by preferring an appeal against it. But it is well-settled that a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit and over parties thereto though bound to decide right may decide wrong; and that even though it decided wrong it would not be doing something which it had no jurisdiction to do.”

However, this distinction between error of jurisdiction and error of law within valid jurisdiction is diluted in Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission,[4] the court held every error of law is a jurisdictional error. Therefore, it does not matter now which kind of error it is, it is put in one box.

We can understand completely through the recent case of Nusli Neville Wadia v. Ivory Properties,[5] it was held that where the court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit but in the exercise of such jurisdiction a mistake has been committed, it would constitute a jurisdictional error but not lack of jurisdiction. Court can proceed with trial by exercising its jurisdiction where adjudicatory facts are missing but not where jurisdictional facts are missing.

In Hiralal v. Kalinath, AIR 1962 SC 199., it was stated that there is a difference between inherent lack of jurisdiction and mere lack of territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction. Inherent lack of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter. An objection regarding the lack of territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction is merely technical and does not go to the root of the matter.

General: Section 9 and Section 15

Section 9: Courts to try all civil suits unless barred

Section 9 of CPC provides that courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature except those which are expressly or impliedly barred. This section provides us with an idea that the courts can try suits of civil nature unless they are barred. In Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Marthoma[6], The SC stated that the words ‘civil nature’ is wider than the words ‘civil proceedings’. Section 9 would be available in every case where the dispute has the characteristics of affecting one’s rights which are not only civil but of civil nature.

However, the express or implied bar can be seen from the case where the Supreme Court observed that the jurisdiction of a civil court is completely barred in matters in respect of which power has been conferred on the National company Law Tribunal.[7]

Some of examples of suits of civil nature are:

1. Suits relating to rights to property;
2. Suits relating to rights of worship;
3. Suits relating to taking out of religious processions;
4. Suits for rents;
5. Suits for specific Reliefs, etc.

Some examples of Suits not of civil nature:

1. Suits involving principally caste questions;
2. Suits involving purely religious rites or ceremonies;
3. Suits for upholding mere dignity or honour;
4. Suits for recovery of voluntary payments or offerings;
5. Suits against expulsions from caste, etc.

The explanation 1 to section 9 provides that a suit in which 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.

The explanation 2 to section 9 provides that for purposes of this section, it is immaterial whether or not any fees are attached to the office referred to in Explanation 1 or whether or not such office is attached to a particular place. Explanation 2 was added in the year 1976 to avoid confusion related to suits of civil nature.

Presumption in favour of jurisdiction of a Civil Court

In Dhulabhai v. State of M.P.,[8] Every presumption is made in favour of jurisdiction of a civil court. Provision of exclusion of jurisdiction of the courts must be strictly construed. In case of doubt as to the jurisdiction the court will lean in favour of jurisdiction.

Section 15: Court in which suits to be instituted

Section 15 provides that every suit shall be instituted in the court of the lowest grade competent to try it. For instance, if two courts can try a suit of 30 lakh and 1 crore respectively and fact in issue provides that matter is of 20 lakh, then the former court having pecuniary jurisdiction of 30 lakh will be appropriate court to institute a civil suit.

In Official Trustee v. Sachindra,[9] the court laid down the following principle with regard to determination of jurisdiction: 1) 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. 2) Jurisdiction of a court must include the power to hear and decide the question in issue.

Section 16: Suits to be instituted where subject-matter situate

Subject to pecuniary and other limitations prescribed, a suit related to these six subject matters shall be instituted in the Courts within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate. The following subject matters are:

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,

The provision states that a suit to

1. obtain relief respecting, or
2. compensation for wrong to, immovable property held by or
3. on behalf of the defendant may,

where the relief is 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 reside, or carries on business, or personally works for gain.

Section 17: Suits for immovable property situate within jurisdiction of different Courts

When the jurisdiction respect to immovable property lies with different courts. The suit may be instituted in any Court within the local limits of whose any portion of the property is situated. The proviso provides that the entire value of the subject-matter of the suit, the entire claim is cognizable by such Court.

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

Section 18(1) provides that where two or more courts have jurisdiction, and it is uncertain in which local limits the jurisdiction of immovable property situate. The suit may be instituted at any one of them, Court is required to record statement of such uncertainty and proceed to give decree. The decree will have the same effect as it was passed by court within local limits of its jurisdiction. The proviso states that court should be competent as regards the nature and value of the suit to exercise jurisdiction.

Section 18(2) provides that where the court has not stated the reason in sub-section (1), and an objection is taken before an Appellate or Revisional Court. The Appellate or Revisional Court shall not allow such objection unless at the time of institution of suit there was no reasonable ground for such uncertainty as to Court having jurisdiction with respect thereto and there has been consequent failure of justice.

Section 19: Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables.

A suit for compensation for wrong done to the person or to movable property can be instituted either at the option of Plaintiff:

1. In a Court within local jurisdiction where wrong is done; or
2. In a Court within local jurisdiction where Defendant resides, or carries on business, or personally work for gain.

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

Section 20 is a residuary section as it provides that subject to limitations in sections 15-19,[10] every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction-

1. 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
2. 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
3. The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

The explanation to section 20 provides that 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 subordinate office, at such place.

Return of Plaint

Order VII Rule 10 provides that at any stage of suit be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted. So, if plaintiff have wrongly decided jurisdiction of a civil court, such court have power to refer it the right court having jurisdiction.

Conclusion

The jurisdiction among these sections mentioned above and discussed in the article clearly provides a detailed description of the place of suing. There are various questions that arise when there is confusion between the jurisdictions. However, with clear understanding of jurisdiction of a civil court you can effectively protect your rights.

FAQs

What is the jurisdiction of a civil court?

What is civil original jurisdiction of a civil court?

To read similar content click here.

---

[1] AIR 1985 SC 577.

[2] Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340.

[3] AIR 1964 SC 907.

[4] (1969) 2 AC 147.

[5] (2020) 6 SCC 557.

[6] AIR 1995 SC 2001.

[7] Sashi Prakash Khemka(Dead) through LRs. V. NEPC Micon (Now called NEPC India) & Ors. (2019) SCC Online SC 223.

[8] AIR 1969 SC 78.

[9] AIR 1965 SC 823.

[10] Union of India v. Ladlu Lal Jain, AIR 1963 SC1681.