Jurisdiction of Civil Court
Section 9 of Code of Civil Procedures
2
JURISDICTION
SECTION 9 - COURTS TO TRY ALL CIVIL SUITS
UNLESS BARRED
The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a
civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.
Explanation I -A suit in which the 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.
Explanation II -For the purposes of this section, it is immaterial whether or not any fees are
attached to the office referred to in Explanation I or whether or not such office is attached to a
particular place.
3
The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained)
have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting
suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or
impliedly barred.
4
JURISDICTION
The word Jurisdiction is derived from Latin terms “Juris” and “Dicto” which means “I speak by law.”
Foreshore Co-operative Housing Society Limited and Ors. vs. Praveen D. Desai and Ors.
(08.04.2015 - SC) : MANU/SC/0390/2015
Jurisdiction is the authority to decide a given case one way or the other. Without jurisdiction, a
court cannot proceed at all in any case; jurisdiction is the power to declare law, and when it ceases
to exist, the only function remaining to a court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the
cause.
5
SHAIKH ABDUL RAZAK YASEEN PATEL AND ORS. VS. SAYYAD
MURAD SYED IRFAN ALI AND ORS. (09.10.2019 - BOMHC) :
MANU/MH/2786/2019
● "By 'jurisdiction' is meant the authority which a court has to decide matters that are litigated before it
or to take cognizance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision.
● The limits of this authority are imposed by the statute, charter, or commission under which the court
is constituted, and may be extended or restricted by similar means.
● If no restriction or limit is imposed the jurisdiction is said to be unlimited.
● A limitation may be either as to the kind and nature of the actions and matters of which the particular
court has cognizance, or as to the area over which the jurisdiction extends."
6
OFFICIAL TRUSTEE, WEST BENGAL AND ORS. VS.
SACHINDRA NATH CHATTERJEE AND ORS. (13.12.1968 - SC) :
MANU/SC/0240/1968
● "This jurisdiction of the Court may be qualified or restricted by a variety of circumstances.
● Thus, the jurisdiction may have to be considered with reference to place, value and nature of the
subject matter.
● This classification into territorial jurisdiction, pecuniary jurisdiction and jurisdiction of the subject
matter is obviously of a fundamental character.
● We must be careful to distinguish exercise of jurisdiction from existence of jurisdiction: for
fundamentally different are the consequences of failure to comply with statutory requirements in
the assumption and in the exercise of jurisdiction.
7
JURISDICTION AND CONSENT
Nila Construction Company vs. Sanghi Industries Ltd., Cement Division (21.10.2005 -
APHC) : MANU/AP/0732/2005
→ Court held that neither consent nor waiver can cure the defect of inherent lack of jurisdiction
and consent of parties cannot operate to confer jurisdiction on a Court which has no competence
to try it.
A.R. Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak and Ors. (29.04.1988 - SC) :
MANU/SC/0002/1988
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 a 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 a
person of his rights of revision and appeal.
8
● 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
thereof can be challenged at any stage.
A Decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a coram non Judice
● Definition of coram non judice : before a judge not competent or without jurisdiction
9
LACK OF JURISDICTION AND IRREGULAR
EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION
● Difference between want of jurisdiction and irregular exercise of jurisdiction.
10
SHRADDHA ASSOCIATES AND ORS. VS. ST. PATRICK'S TOWN CO -
OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIET Y LTD. AND ORS. (05.09.2002 - BOMHC) :
MANU/MH/0822/2002
The difference between lack of jurisdiction and irregular exercise of jurisdiction
is always to be borne in mind.
It is well said that a "Court has jurisdiction to decide wrong as well as right".
When the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the matter, it can
exercise its jurisdiction properly or improperly as well as regularly or
irregularly but the defect in exercise of jurisdiction does not go to the
root of the matter and error in exercise of jurisdiction can be
remedied.
However, if any order is passed without jurisdiction to the Court, then it is a
nullity and it cannot be remedied 11
MATHAI VS. VARKEY AND ORS. (15.01.1963 - SC) :
MANU/SC/0260/1963
Even assuming that the suit was barred by time, it is difficult to appreciate the contention that the
decree can be treated as a nullity and ignored in subsequent litigation.
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.
12
MATHAI VS. VARKEY AND ORS. (15.01.1963 - SC) :
MANU/SC/0260/1963
● But it is well-settled that a court having jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit and over
the 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.
● It had the jurisdiction over the subject-matter and it had the jurisdiction over the party and,
therefore, merely because it made an error in deciding a vital issue in the suit, it cannot be said
that it has acted beyond its jurisdiction.
● 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.
13
BASIS TO DETERMINE JURISDICTION
● The averments made in the plaint are material.
● The jurisdiction of a court should normally be decided on the basis of the case put
forward by the plaintiff in his plaint and not be the defendant in his written
statement.
14
ANANTI VS. CHHANNU AND ORS. (18.12.1929 - ALLHC) :
MANU/UP/0079/1929
● Where the plaintiff chooses his forum and the defendant denies the jurisdiction of the Court to hear
the case two questions arise, viz.:
○ 1. Whether, on the allegations made in the plaint, the suit is cognizable by the Court?
And
○ 2. Whether, on the true state of facts, as alleged and established by the defendant, the
suit should be tried by the Court?
15
SUIT OF CIVIL NATURE
● Most. Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan and Ors. vs. Moran Mar Marthoma and Ors.
(20.06.1995 - SC) : MANU/SC/0407/1995
One of the basic principles of law is that every right has a remedy. Ubi jus ibi remedied is the
well known maxim. Every civil suit is cognizable unless it is barred, 'there is an inherent right in
every person to bring a suit of a civil nature and unless the suit is barred by statute one may, at
one's peril, bring a suit of one's choice. It is no answer to a suit, howsoever frivolous the claim,
that the law confers no such right to sue'
16
MOST. REV. P.M.A. METROPOLITAN AND ORS. VS. MORAN MAR
MARTHOMA AND ORS. (20.06.1995 - SC) : MANU/SC/0407 /19 95
● Litigation between two christian rival groups of jacobite community for religious and
spiritual supremacy - by facts of case Court concluded Knanaya church to be inferior to Malankara
church subject to guarantee provided under Article 25 - spiritual superiority could not be imposed on
individuals as guaranteed under Article 25 - no intention of Court to make difference made to
patriarch by judgment - Constitution of Malankara church shall govern Knanaya church - such
regulation must be subjected to Knanaya's own Constitution.
17
MOST. REV. P.M.A. METROPOLITAN AND ORS. VS. MORAN MAR
MARTHOMA AND ORS. (20.06.1995 - SC) : MANU/SC/0407 /1 995
● Are religious rights, for instance right to worship in a religious place, entry in a temple, administration
of religious shrines for instance a temple, mosque or a church are rights of civil nature? is the suit filed
by the respondent bad as the declaration, injunction and prohibition sought are in respect of matters
which are not civil in nature?
● The answer is given by Explanation I.
● The Civil Procedure Code was enacted during British period. The legislature enacting the law was
aware that there were no ecclesiastical courts either in ancient or Medieval India as in England. 'The
term "ecclesiastical law" may be used both in a general and in a technical sense. In its general sense it
means the law relating to any matter concerning the Church of England administered and enforced in
any court;
18
UGAMSINGH & MISHRIMAL V. KESRIMAL AND ORS.
MANU/SC/0537/1970 : [1971]2SCR836 ,
It was held that right to worship is a civil right which can be subject matter of a civil suit.
19
EXAMPLES OF SUIT OF CIVIL NATURE:
● Suits relating to rights to property;
● Suits relating to rights to worship;
● Suits relating to taking out of religious procession.
● Suits relating to rights to shares in offerings.
● Suits relating to damages for civil wrongs.
● Specific performance of contracts, breach of contract, etc
● Restitution of conjugal rights;
● Suits for rent;
● Suits for accounts;
● Suits for rights of franchise;
● Suits for hereditary offices;
● Suits for Yajmanvrities;
● Suits against wrongful dismissals from service and for salaries, etc.
20
EXAMPLES WHICH ARE NOT OF CIVIL NATURE:
● Suits involving principally caste questions;
● Suits involving purely religious rites or ceremonies;
● Suits for upholding mere dignity or honour;
● Suits against expulsion from caste, etc.
21
EXPRESSLY BARRED
● A suit is said to be expressly barred when it is barred by any enactment for the time being in force.
● Eg:-
■ Industrial Tribunal,
■ Election Tribunal,
■ Revenue tribunal,
■ rent tribunal,
■ Cooperative tribunal,
■ Income tax Tribunal,
■ Motor Accident claims tribunal, etc
22
EXAMPLE
● REAL ESTATE (REGULATION AND DEVELOPMENT) ACT, 2016
● Section 79 - Bar of jurisdiction
● No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any
matter which the Authority or the adjudicating officer or the Appellate Tribunal is
empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any
court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any
power conferred by or under this Act.
23
ENVIRONMENT (PROTECTION) ACT, 1986
SECTION 22 - BAR OF JURISDICTION
● No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of anything done,
action taken or order or direction issued by the central government or any other authority or officer
in pursuance of any power conferred by or in relation to its or his functions under this Act.
24
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988
SECTION 175 - BAR ON JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURTS
● Where any Claims Tribunal has been constituted for any area, no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to
entertain any question relating to any claim for compensation which may be adjudicated upon by the
Claims Tribunal for that area, and no injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by or
before the Claims Tribunal in respect of the claim for compensation shall be granted by the Court.
25
IMPLIEDLY BARRED
● Impliedly barred: A Suit is said to be impliedly barred when it is barred by general principles of
law.
● Where a specific remedy is given by a statute, it thereby deprives the person who insists upon a
remedy of any other form than that given by the statute.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. O.P. Mittal and Ors. (08.03.2011 - PHHC) :
MANU/PH/1980/2011
● once jurisdiction is given to a special Tribunal, the remedy of filing a civil suit is to be held to be
impliedly barred. The pleas taken in the present suit can be challenged by Respondent No. 1-
Plaintiff before the special Tribunal.
26
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019
● Section 34 - Jurisdiction of District Commission
(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to
entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed
one crore rupees:
● Section 47 - Jurisdiction of State Commission
complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration, exceeds rupees one crore,
but does not exceed rupees ten crore:
● Section 58 - Jurisdiction of National Commission
(i) complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration exceeds rupees ten
crore:
27
THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY CALCUTTA, UNDER THE LAND
(CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT, 1976 AND ORS . VS. DAVID MANTOSH
AND ORS . (26.02.2019 - SC) : MANU/SC/ 0275/2019
● If there were any remedy available to the Respondents in relation to the suit property, then any
such remedy was under the Act but not by filing a civil suit in a Civil Court and start a fresh round
of litigation with respect to the suit property. Such a suit was, impliedly barred in the light of
exclusion of jurisdiction of the Civil Court under the Act.
28
DHULABHAI AND ORS . VS. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
ORS . (05.04.1968 - SC) : MANU/SC/0157/1968
● "It is settled law that the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is not to be readily
inferred, but that such exclusion must either be explicitly expressed or clearly implied.
● It is also well-settled that even if jurisdiction is so excluded, the Civil Courts have jurisdiction
to examine into cases where the provisions of the Act have not been complied with, or the
statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial
procedure."
29
THE PREMIER AUTOMOBILES LTD. VS. KAMLEKAR SHANTARAM
WADKE OF BOMBAY AND ORS . (26.08.1975 - SC) : MANU/S C/0369/1 975
● Under Section 9 of the CPC the Court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature excepting
suits of which cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. A statute, therefore, expressly or by
necessary implication, can bar the jurisdiction of civil Courts in respect of a particular matter. The
mere conferment of special jurisdiction on a tribunal in respect of the said matter does not in itself
exclude the jurisdiction of civil Courts.
30
THE PREMIER AUTOMOBILES LTD. VS. KAMLEKAR SHANTARAM
WADKE OF BOMBAY AND ORS . (26.08.1975 - SC) : MANU/S C/0369/1 975
● The principles applicable to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in relation to an industrial dispute may
be stated thus:
(1) If the dispute is not an industrial dispute, nor does it relate to enforcement of any other
right under the Act the remedy lies only in the civil Court.
(2) If the dispute is an industrial dispute arising out of a right or liability under the general or
common law and not under the Act, the jurisdiction of the civil Court is alternative, leaving it
to the election of the suitor concerned to choose his remedy for the relief which is
competent to be granted in a particular remedy.
(3) If the industrial dispute relates to the enforcement of a right or an obligation created
Under the Act. then the only remedy available to the suitor is to get an adjudication under the
Act.
31
Thank You..
32
