Introduction

The objections to jurisdiction can be raised by the defendant as he is one who will be questioning the applicability of jurisdiction of particular court. Under Section 21 of CPC, the objections to jurisdiction of a court is provided in a detailed manner, it provides limitations on filing objections on jurisdiction. The object of Section 21 is to protect honest litigants and to avoid harassment to plaintiff who have acted in bona fide manner, it does not provide protection to dishonest litigants.[1]

There are also some instances observed by the Supreme Court of India in ONGC v. Utpal Kumar Basu, that despite no cause of action in Calcutta, the High Court entertained a writ petition and granted interim relief to the petitioner. Supreme Court observed that it was a “great pity” that one of the premier High Courts had developed tendency to assume jurisdiction on unsustainable grounds.

Further, in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das[2], the Supreme Court stated, “There is an increasing tendency on the part of litigants to indulge in speculative and vexatious litigation and adventurism which the for a seem readily to oblige. We think such a tendency should be curbed.”

The purpose of giving jurisdiction to a Court was to ensure that parties’ rights were adequately determined. If jurisdiction is applied wrongly and the Court let it continue then it will be a denial of justice. The competence of a court to try a case goes to the very root of the jurisdiction, and where it is lacking, it is a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction. Therefore, Section 21 of CPC provides with certain limitations to challenge the jurisdiction of a court.

The objection of local jurisdiction and the competence of a Court are two different things. The objection of local jurisdiction if not raised by the defendant under Sec. 21, means that defendant agrees with the jurisdiction of the Court and the decision will be final and binding on parties. However, where competence of a Court is lacking, it inherent lack of jurisdiction. In Sneh Lata Goel v. Pushplata,[3] the Court observed that Section 21 of CPC makes it clear that an objection as to the want of territorial jurisdiction does not go to the root of the jurisdiction. It does not constitute inherent lack of jurisdiction.

In Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan,[4] the Supreme Court explained the principle under sec. 21 in following words:

“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, and the policy of the legislature has been to treat objections to both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction as technical and not open to consideration by an appellate court, unless there has been prejudice on merits.”

Under Section 21 of CPC, jurisdiction is provided under three heads:

1. Objections to Territorial Jurisdiction
2. Objections to Pecuniary Jurisdiction
3. Objection to Jurisdiction of Execution Court

We will discuss all three heads in detail in the same order as provided above.

Objections to Territorial Jurisdiction

Section 21(1) provides that No objection as to place of suing shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken:

1. In the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity, and
2. In all cases, where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, and
3. Unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.

The use of ‘and’ signifies that all three conditions must be fulfilled simultaneously.

In Hira Lal Patni v. Kali Nath, Section 21(1) was applied as Bombay High Court try the suit and decide the dispute without having jurisdiction as the Court which ought to decide the dispute was locate in Agra.  

Objections to Pecuniary Jurisdiction

Section 21(2) provides that no objection as to the competence of a Court with reference to the pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction shall be allowed by an Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken:

1. In the Court of first instance at earliest possible opportunity, and
2. In all cases, where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, and
3. Unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.

The use of ‘and’ signifies that all three conditions must be fulfilled simultaneously.

Objection to Jurisdiction of Execution Court

Section 21(3) provides that no objection as to the competence of the executing Court with reference to local limits of its jurisdiction shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken:

1. In the executing Court at the earliest possible opportunity, and
2. Unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.

These two conditions are read simultaneously.

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

Section 21-A makes it clear that on any grounds based on an objection of jurisdiction as to place of suing, no new suit can be initiated challenging the validity of decree passed in former suit:

1. Between the same parties, or
2. Between the parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title

Section 21-A of CPC is unclear with respect to objection to pecuniary or other defects. However, it is submitted that the principle applicable to territorial defects will pro tanto (to that extend) apply to pecuniary defects as well.

Conclusion

Objections to Jurisdiction under section 21 as we have seen in this article is to ensure procedural justice. The defendant can raise his objection related to jurisdiction of a Court, however, if he does not raise it, the conclusion to suit must happen. This principle helps Courts in finalizing a legal dispute and end litigation on that issue. It is very important provision for ensuring determination of rights in a proper manner.

FAQs

What are objections to jurisdiction under the CPC?
Objections to jurisdiction refer to the formal challenges raised by a party when questioning the legal authority of a court. These objections to jurisdiction assert that the court lacks the requisite territorial, pecuniary, or subject matter jurisdiction to decide the case.

At what stage must objections to jurisdiction be raised?
According to Section 21 of the CPC, objections to jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity in the trial court. Failing to raise objections to jurisdiction before issues are settled generally results in a waiver of the right to contest jurisdiction later in the litigation process.

What does “failure of justice” mean in the context of objections to jurisdiction?
For an appellate or revisional court to consider objections to jurisdiction that were not raised in the trial court, there must be a clear “failure of justice.” This failure of justice criterion must be met before an appellate court reopens objections to jurisdiction that were previously overlooked.

Can objections to jurisdiction be raised on appeal?
Generally, objections to jurisdiction must be raised at the trial level. If a party does not timely raise objections to jurisdiction, those objections cannot be introduced for the first time on appeal unless a demonstrable failure of justice is proven.

What are the consequences of not raising objections to jurisdiction at the proper time?
If objections to jurisdiction are not raised in the trial court at the earliest opportunity, the party is typically considered to have waived their right to later contest the court’s jurisdiction. This waiver means that subsequent objections to jurisdiction on appeal are unlikely to be successful.

How do objections to jurisdiction differ between territorial and pecuniary grounds?
Objections to jurisdiction based on territorial grounds focus on whether the case is being heard in the correct geographical area, while objections to jurisdiction based on pecuniary limits question whether the monetary value of the case falls within the court’s authorized range. Both types of objections to jurisdiction serve to ensure that the proper forum is used for adjudication.

Are there any exceptions to the rule on raising objections to jurisdiction early?
Yes. In exceptional circumstances, if a party can prove that the failure to raise objections to jurisdiction early resulted in a “failure of justice,” then even late objections to jurisdiction may be considered by an appellate or revisional court.

Do objections to jurisdiction also apply during execution proceedings?
Yes, objections to jurisdiction are not limited to the trial phase. They also apply during execution proceedings. However, the rule remains that any objections to jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest stage; otherwise, the opportunity to object to jurisdiction during execution may be lost.

Why is it critical to raise objections to jurisdiction early in a civil suit?
Raising objections to jurisdiction early in the litigation process ensures that any issues regarding the court’s authority are addressed promptly. Timely objections to jurisdiction help prevent the misuse of judicial resources and avoid delays caused by improper venue challenges. This proactive approach ensures that all objections to jurisdiction are resolved before significant proceedings occur, thereby preserving the integrity and efficiency of the legal process.

To read similar topics click here.

---

[1] ONGC v. Utpal Kumar Basu, (1994) 4 SCC 711.

[2] (1994) 4 SCC 225.

[3] (2019) 3 SCC 594.

[4] AIR 1954 SC 340.