PLACE OF SUING

1. INTRODUCTION
 Place of suing in CPC refers to where a lawsuit or legal action should be initiated or
filed. It specifies the jurisdiction and venue where the case should be brought before
a court.
 The provisions regarding the place of suing are outlined in the Code of Civil
Procedure to ensure that the appropriate Court with the necessary jurisdiction is
chosen for the efficient and fair resolution of the dispute.
 The rules and guidelines related to the place of suing help determine which Court is
competent to hear and decide a particular case based on factors such as the nature of
the case, the subject matter, the geographical location of the parties involved, and
other relevant considerations.

2. SECTION 15: PLACE OF SUING BASED ON PECUNIARY BASIS

 Section 15 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908- “Court in which suits to be
instituted”-“Every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent
to try it”
 Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure states that every lawsuit should be initiated
in the Court of the lowest grade with the competence to handle it. This requirement
aims to prevent overburdening of higher courts. While a judgment passed by a
higher-grade court remains valid, a decree passed by an incompetent court would be
considered void.
 Therefore, a higher court decree cannot be passed without jurisdiction, as clarified by
the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Gopal v. Shamrao
(1941).
 Section 15 serves two primary purposes:
i. Reducing the workload of higher courts.
ii. Providing convenience to the parties and witnesses involved in such lawsuits.
 The jurisdiction of a court under Section 15 is determined based on the valuation
stated by the plaintiff in the lawsuit, rather than the final amount for which the Court
will pass the decree.
 In the case of Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan (1954), a bench comprising Justices
Aiyyar and T.L. Venkatarama considered the application of Section 11 of the Suits
Valuation Act, 1887. This provision, along with Sections 21 and 99 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908, is founded on the principle that once a case has been fully
heard and a judgment has been pronounced, it should not be overturned solely on
technical grounds unless there has been a miscarriage of justice.
 In the case of Mazhar Husain and Anr. v. Nidhi Lal (1885), heard by the Allahabad
High Court before India’s independence, elucidates the objectives of Section 15 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. These objectives, as observed in the case, are as
follows:
i. Avoiding overburdening higher-grade courts with an excessive number of
suits.
ii. Providing convenience to the parties and witnesses involved in such suits.
 In the case of Tara Devi v. Sri Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj (1987), the
defendant raised a preliminary objection regarding the valuation of the suit and
 questioned the Court’s authority to hear the case in their written statement. The Trial
Court determined that the valuation of the suit fell under Section 7(IV)(c) of the
Court Fees Act, 1870, and that the plaintiff had correctly assessed the leasehold
interest of the lessee. The Trial Court concluded that the plaintiff had the right to
determine the value of the relief sought, which was neither arbitrary nor
unreasonable. Consequently, it was decided that the plaintiff had accurately assessed
the claim and paid the appropriate court fees.

3. SECTION 16: SUITS TO BE INSTITUTED WHERE SUBJECT-MATTER

SITUATE
 Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 states that suits related to specific
types of claims concerning immovable property should be instituted in the Court
within the local jurisdiction where the property is situated. These types of suits
include:
i. Recovery of immovable property with or without rent or profits,
ii. Partition of immovable property,
iii. Foreclosure, sale, or redemption in the case of a mortgage or charge on
immovable property,
iv. Determination of any other right or interest in immovable property,
v. Compensation for wrong to immovable property,
vi. Recovery of movable property that is currently under distraint or attachment.
 However, there is a provision that if a suit seeks relief or compensation for wrong to
immovable property held by or on behalf of the defendant. The relief can be entirely
obtained through the defendant’s obedience, the suit can be filed either in the Court
within the jurisdiction where the property is situated or in the Court within the
jurisdiction where the defendant resides, carries on business, or works for gain
voluntarily and effectively.
 Subject-matter jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court to hear and decide cases
based on the nature of the issues involved. Different courts are granted jurisdiction
over specific types of lawsuits to handle diverse legal matters. For instance, matters
related to insolvency, probate, divorce, and similar issues cannot be adjudicated by a
court of civil judges of the junior division. If a court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction
over a particular case, any decree or judgment issued by that Court is considered null
and void.
 Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 allows invoking jurisdiction in five
specific types of suits, which are as follows:
i. Partition of immovable property
ii. Recovery of immovable property
iii. Torts to immovable property
iv. Determination of any right or interest in the property
v. Sale, foreclosure, or redemption regarding a mortgage or charge on
immovable property
 In the case of Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd. (2005), the
Supreme Court held that an action could be filed under Section 16 of the CPC, 1908,
in the jurisdiction where the immovable property is located, regardless of factors
such as the location of the cause of action or the residence of the parties. In that
 particular case, since the immovable property was in Gurgaon (Haryana), the Delhi
High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.

4. SECTION 17: SUITS FOR IMMOVABLE PROPERTY SITUATE WITHIN

JURISDICTION OF DIFFERENT COURTS
 Section 17 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 states, “Suits for immovable property
situate within the jurisdiction of different Courts”.
 In cases where the immovable property is situated within the local jurisdiction of
different courts if a lawsuit is filed seeking compensation or relief for wrongs caused
to the immovable property, it can be brought before any court within the jurisdiction
where a portion of the property is located. However, it is important to note that the
Court hearing the case will have cognizance over the entire claim, considering the
significance of the subject matter of the suit.

5. SECTION 18: PLACE OF INSTITUTION OF SUIT WHERE LOCAL LIMITS OF

JURISDICTION OF COURTS ARE UNCERTAIN
 Section 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 addresses the issue of determining
the place of institution of a suit when the local jurisdiction of courts is uncertain.
 If there is uncertainty about the jurisdiction of two or more courts regarding the
location of immovable property, any of those courts can, upon satisfaction of the
alleged uncertainty, record a statement to that effect.
 The court, after recording the statement, has the authority to hear and adjudicate any
suit related to that property. The decree issued by this court will be treated as if the
property falls within its local jurisdiction, provided that the court is competent in
terms of the nature and value of the suit.
 It is important to note that an objection can be raised before an Appellate or
Revisional Court if no statement is recorded under sub-section (1). The higher court
will entertain the objection only if it believes that there was no reasonable ground for
uncertainty at the time of filing the suit, leading to a failure of justice in the
subsequent decree or order.
 Hakam Singh v Gammon (India) Ltd. (1971)
The Supreme Court held that the agreement between the parties, conferring
jurisdiction on the courts in Bombay to handle the arbitration proceedings, was valid
and enforceable as the Bombay courts had jurisdiction as per the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908.
6. SECTION 19: SUITS FOR COMPENSATION FOR WRONGS TO PERSON OR
MOVABLES
 Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 pertains to "Suits for compensation
for wrongs to person or movables."
 In situations where a legal action involves seeking compensation for harm inflicted
upon a person or movable property, and the wrongful act occurred within the
jurisdiction of one court while the defendant resides, conducts business, or engages in
gainful employment within the jurisdiction of another court, the plaintiff has the
flexibility to initiate the lawsuit in either of these specified courts.
 To illustrate, if Raj, a resident of Kolkata, commits a wrongful act against Suraj, who
resides in Gujarat, Suraj is empowered to initiate the legal proceedings either in the
 Kolkata court or the Gujarat court. Importantly, the plaintiff cannot opt for a third,
unrelated court such as Delhi. This provision grants the plaintiff the freedom to
choose the court based on their convenience or strategic considerations, especially
when the wrongful act and the defendant's location fall within different court
jurisdictions.

7. SECTION 20: OTHER SUITS TO BE INSTITUTED WHERE DEFENDANTS

RESIDE OR CAUSE OF ACTION ARISES
 Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 deals with the venue for the
institution of suits and is applicable within certain limitations. According to this
section a suit must be initiated in a court within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction any of the following conditions is met at the time of the
commencement of the suit:
i. The defendant, or each of the defendants in cases where there are more
than one, actually and voluntarily resides, carries on business, or
personally works for gain.
ii. Any of the defendants, in cases with multiple defendants, actually and
voluntarily resides, carries on business, or personally works for gain,
provided that the court grants leave or the defendants who do not meet
these criteria acquiesce in such institution.
iii. The cause of action, either wholly or in part, arises.

 Explanation I clarify that a person with a permanent dwelling at one place and a
temporary residence at another shall be deemed to reside at both places
concerning any cause of action arising at the location of their temporary residence.
 Explanation II stipulates that a corporation is deemed to carry on business at its
sole or principal office in India or, in cases where it has a subordinate office at a
different place, at that subordinate office concerning any cause of action arising
there.

8. SECTION 21: OBJECTIONS TO JURISDICTION

Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 pertains to "Objections to Jurisdiction."
Any Appellate or Revisional Court is prohibited from entertaining objections regarding
the venue of filing a suit unless the same objection was raised in the Court of first
instance at the earliest available opportunity. This objection must be raised either before
or during the settlement of issues, and it can only be considered if there has been a
subsequent failure of justice.

9. CONCLUSION
The concept of the place of suing in CPC pertains to where a lawsuit should be instituted
or filed. It is essential to determine the appropriate Court with the necessary jurisdiction
and venue to resolve the dispute efficiently. The CPC provides provisions and guidelines
to identify the Court of competent jurisdiction based on factors such as the case’s nature,
the parties’ geographical location, and the subject matter. Section 15 of the CPC
emphasizes that a suit must be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to
handle it, thus preventing the overburdening of higher courts.