INTRODUCTION

“Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium” which means that where there is right there is a remedy, a basic
principle of English right which is accepted by the Indian law. When a person right is curtailed
or being infringed then he has to approach to the appropriate forum or the appropriate judicial
forum for the award of compensation. Such judicial form must have an authority to adjudicate on
the matter. The judicial forum must have jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Each Court has a
different jurisdiction.

The extent of jurisdiction will be determined with reference to the subject-matter, pecuniary
value and the local limits. So, while the question of jurisdiction of a court is determined, the
nature of the case, the pecuniary value of the suit, and the territorial limitation of the court need
to be taken into consideration.

Not only that, there may be a situation where in the forum approached may have competency to
deal with the subject-matter, the suit is falling well within the pecuniary limitation and within the
local limits assigned with that court as well, but if the court is not competent to grant the relief
sought then also the court cannot be considered as the court having jurisdiction as observed in
Official Trustee V. Sachindra Nath, the supreme court observed:“That before a court can be
held to have jurisdiction to decide a particular matter it must not only have jurisdiction to try the
suit brought but must also have the authority to pass the order sought for.”

MEANING OF JURISDICTION

In general meaning, Jurisdiction is the power of the Court to take the cognizance of an offence
and to determine the cause of action.

According to Black’s Law dictionary Jurisdiction means “A court’s power to decide on a case or
issue a decree.”

The jurisdiction was defined in the case of Hirday Nath vs Ram Chandra. The High Court of
Calcutta stated that jurisdiction may be defined as judicial power of Court to hear and determine
the cause and adjudicate upon it.
Jurisdiction is decided mainly on the basis of:-

Pecuniary value
Local limits of Court
The subject matter of Court

So the Court before taking the cognizance of offence, the following points needs to be taken into
consideration:-

The pecuniary value of the suit

The nature of the case
The territorial limits of the court

It is not only sufficient that forum must have an authority to deal with the matter or that the court
has a pecuniary jurisdiction or the court has a local jurisdiction but the court must be competent
enough to grant the relief in such matter.

JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT (SECTION 9)

The word civil is not defined in section 9. According to Dictionary “civil rights is private rights
and remedies that are different from the criminal and political”. The word “nature” indicates the
identity or essential character of a person or thing. So, we can draw the definition of suits of civil
nature means that the suit in a dispute relating to private rights and the suit must not be related to
a political or criminal matter.

The civil court shall have jurisdiction to try all the suits except the suit which is impliedly or
expressly barred.

A suit which is related to the right to property or suit in which office is contested is of civil
nature suit, notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decisions of questions as
to religious ceremonies or rites. It is immaterial whether the fees to the office are attached or not,
or whether such an office is attached to a particular place or not.

The suit which is expressly barred means the suit which is barred by any statute or any other law
for the time being in force. The legislature has an option to bar the jurisdiction of the civil court
with respect to a particular class of suit keeping itself with the ambit of the power conferred on
Constitution of India. The establishment of the tribunal has taken away the jurisdiction of the
civil court with regard to the subject matter that is allotted to the tribunal on the first instance,
however, if any questions related to law raised, or any provision of the act so created the tribunal
can be looked into by the civil court. The civil court has no jurisdiction over the matter in which
court under the Code of Criminal Procedure, Revenue Court has exclusive jurisdiction, or matter
is dealt with special tribunal dealt under special statutes. example Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Cooperative Tribunal.

In the case of P.M.A Metropolitan vs Moran Mar Marthoma

The Supreme Court observed that:-

 The phrases used in section 9 has a positive and negative meaning

 The earlier part has a wider sense as it covers all the matter of civil nature; on the other
hand, the latter part has a wider sense as it excludes the matter which is impliedly or
expressly barred.
 The two explanations mentioned in Section 9 expresses the legislative intentions.
 It cast an obligation on the court to exercise the jurisdiction for the enforcement of
private rights
 No court is at discretion to refuse the matter which falls under this section
 It is mandatory to take the cognizance of matter because the word “shall” is used
which means that it is a mandatory section.

In the case of Shankar Narayanan Potti vs K. Sreedevi

The Supreme Court held that the ‘Civil Court has inherent jurisdiction in all types of civil matter
as per Section 9 of CPC unless the suit is expressly or impliedly barred.”

This means that Legislature can exclude the jurisdiction of the civil court by inserting a provision
or clause in any Act itself.
KINDS OF JURISDICTION AND PLACE OF SUING: SEC-15 TO SEC-20

There are basically three kinds of jurisdictions on the basis of which the place of suing may be
determined. These are

1. Pecuniary Jurisdiction

2. Territorial Jurisdictions, and

3. Subject Matter Jurisdictions

If the matter put forth by the litigant for adjudication in front of the court, and the court have all
these (pecuniary, territorial and Subject-Matter) jurisdiction, then only that court can try the
matters so brought by the litigants. In case, the court does not have any of the above mentioned
jurisdiction and still try the suit, it will be either termed as irregular exercise of jurisdiction or
lack of jurisdiction which may turn the decision void or voidable depending upon the situations.
The concept of Irregular Exercise of Jurisdiction and Lack of Jurisdiction will be discussed
separately at the end.

PECUNIARY JURISDICTION: SEC-15

Every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it.

The word competent to try indicate the competency of the court with respect to the pecuniary
jurisdiction. It means, the courts of lowest grade who has the jurisdiction with respect to
pecuniary value shall try the suit at first.

Now, the biggest question is, who will determine the valuation of the suit for the purpose of
determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. In general, it is the valuation done by the
plaintiff is considered for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court,
unless the court from the very face of the suit find it incorrect. So, if the court finds that the
valuation done by the plaintiff is not correct, that is either undervalued or overvalued, the court
will do the valuation and direct the party to approach the appropriate forum.
So, 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 decree may be passed. Thus, if the pecuniary
jurisdiction of the court of lowest grade is, say, Rs. 10,000/- and the plaintiff filed a suit for
accounts wherein the plaintiff valuation of the suit is well within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the
court but court latter 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.

Usually, a court will accept a valuation of the plaintiff in the plaint and proceed to decide the
matter on merits on that basis, however, that does not mean that plaintiff in all cases are at liberty
to assign any arbitrary value to the suit, and to choose the court in which he wants to file the suit.

If it appears to the court that the valuation is falsely made in the plaint for the purpose of
avoiding the jurisdiction of the proper court, the court may require the plaintiff to prove that the
valuation are proper.

Next important question is the status of decision given by the court who does not have the
pecuniary jurisdiction in the matter. That is, what if the Court proceeded with the matter and later
come to know that it did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction. (The matter will be dealt under
heading – irregular exercise of jurisdiction).

TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION: SEC- 16 TO SEC -20

IMMOVABLE PROPERTY: SEC-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) 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.

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 Court, 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.

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 under sub-section (1), and 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.

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.

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.

OTHER SUITS: SECTION 20

Section 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 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 work 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.

Illustrations:-

(a) A is a tradesman in Calcutta, B carries on business in Delhi. B, by his agent in Calcutta, buys
goods of A and requests A to deliver them to the East Indian Railway Company. A delivers the
goods accordingly in Calcutta. A may sue B for the price of the goods either in Calcutta, where
the cause of action has arisen or in Delhi, where B carries on business.

SECTION 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 or 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.

It is a fundamental rule that a decree of a court without jurisdiction is nullity. Halsbury rightly
states:
“where by reason of any limitation imposed by statute, charter or commission, a court is without
jurisdiction to entertain any particular action or matter, neither the acquiesce nor the express
consent of the parties can confer jurisdiction upon the court nor can consent give a court
jurisdiction if a condition which goes to the root of the jurisdiction has not been performed or
fulfilled.”

However, this does not apply to territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction. In case an error is committed
by the court in exercising the jurisdiction with respect to pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction, the
decision so given will not be void, it will be considered as irregular exercise of jurisdiction. No
doubt, party has a right to raise the issue but at the earliest possible time and once the court
proceeded with the matter and given the decision the same cannot be raised at the appellate stage
at all as observed in the case of Kiran Singh V. Chaman Paswan.

SECTION 21-A: 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.

CONCLUSION

The concept of the place of suing is very important as it helps to determine the jurisdiction of
each court. It helps to the plaintiff where to file a suit. It saves the time of the court in
determining the jurisdiction of the court.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Takwani, C. k, Civil Procedure Code, 7th Edition, Eastern Book

Company, 2018

2. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

3. https://blog.ipleaders.in/jurisdictions-civil-court-place-suing/

4. http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1780/Jurisdiction-of-Civil-

Court-and-Place-of-Suing.html

5. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/4137/1/

Civil_Courts_Act_1977.pdf

6. Mahmud, Wazedd: Hand Book on Civil of Procedure Code