VIDHI ERA Legal Consultancy & Law Institute

Jurisdiction of civil courts

OUTLINE
✓ GENERAL INTRODUCTION

▪ Meaning of the term ‘Jurisdiction’

▪ Basis to determine jurisdiction
On whom burden of proof lies, if there is objection to jurisdiction
▪ Who will decide the jurisdiction of the Court?
Presumption as to Jurisdiction
➢ Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1969)
▪ Jurisdiction & Consent
▪ Kinds of Jurisdiction

Civil & Criminal Jurisdiction

Territorial or local Jurisdiction
Pecuniary Jurisdiction
Subject matter Jurisdiction
Original & Appellate Jurisdiction
Exclusive & Concurrent Jurisdiction
General & Special Jurisdiction
Legal & Equitable Jurisdiction

✓ SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION [Section 9]

▪ Nature & Scope

▪ Conditions to be fulfilled in order to invoke Section 9
Suit of Civil Nature
❖ Illustrations of ‘Suits of Civil nature’
❖ Illustrations of ‘Suits not of Civil nature’
Cognizance not barred (either expressly or impliedly)
▪ Exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Court
Limitations on “exclusion of jurisdiction”
Principles of “exclusion of jurisdiction”

✓ PECUNIARY JURISDICTION [Section 15 r.w. Section 6]

▪ Mode of valuation (in accordance with the Suits Valuation Act, 1887)
▪ Pecuniary limits of Civil Courts (in accordance with the Civil Courts Act)
Jurisdictions exercised by the District & Session Judges

✓ TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION [Sections (16 to 20)]

▪ Suits in respect of immovable property [Sections (16 to 18)]

Page 1 of 21
 VIDHI ERA Legal Consultancy & Law Institute

▪ Suits for movable property [Section 19]

▪ Suits for compensation for wrongs to person [Section 19]
▪ Other suits (Residuary) [Section 20]
▪ Forum Shopping

✓ OBJECTIONS AS TO JURISDICTION [Section 21]

▪ Decree passed in excess of Pecuniary jurisdiction mere irregularity, hence
▪ Decree passed in excess of Territorial jurisdiction perfectly valid unless set aside
▪ Decree passed in excess of Subject matter jurisdiction (nullity, hence void ab initio)

✓ BAR ON NEW SUIT TO SET ASIDE DECREE ON OBJECTION [Section 21A]

GENERAL INTRODUCTION
MEANING OF THE TERM ‘JURISDICTION’

The term “jurisdiction” has not been defined in the Code but it means the power, authority and
competency of the court of law to adjudicate disputes presented before it & pass an effective order.
Thus, it refers to the right of administering justice by means of law.

The Supreme Court in Raja Soap Factory v. S.P. Santharaj [AIR 1965 SC 1449] HELD that
jurisdiction means the extent of the authority of a court to hear and determine a cause or a matter
prescribed with reference to the subject matter, pecuniary value and local limits. It is a power of
the court to entertain and decide the matters before it.

Basically, it is not that Civil Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of suits of civil nature
because of Section 9 of CPC. The jurisdiction to take cognizance of the dispute of civil nature is
inherent in the Civil Court. Also, every person has inherent right to move to the civil court if he
feels that his right has been infringed. You do not need any authority of law to confer jurisdiction
upon the Civil Court to take cognizance of the suit.

The Supreme Court in Ganga Bai v. Vijaykumar & Ors. [AIR 1974 SC 1126] HELD that there
is an inherent right in every person to bring a suit of a civil nature and unless the suit is barred by
any statute. A person may, at one’s peril, bring a suit of one’s choice. It is no answer to a suit,
howsoever frivolous the claim may be, that the law confers no such right to sue. Further, in Shiv
Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers [AIR 2003 SC 2434] Supreme
Court HELD that there is inherent right in every person to file a suit and for its maintainability it
requires no authority of law.

Though the 1st part of Section 9 gives a wide meaning the word “jurisdiction” is limited by three
jurisdictional elements i.e., jurisdiction over subject matter, pecuniary and territorial. Unless all
these three elements co-exist, the Court shall not have jurisdiction to take cognizance.

Page 2 of 21
 VIDHI ERA Legal Consultancy & Law Institute

BASIS TO DETERMINE JURISDICTION

Normally, the jurisdiction of a Civil Court is decided on the basis of the case put forward by the
plaintiff in his plaint and not by the defendant in his written statement. Thus, plaintiff’s valuation
of the suit in his plaint determines the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court and the allegation made
in the plaint decide the forum (i.e., subject matter jurisdiction).

But if the defendant disputes the undervaluation or overvaluation put by the plaintiff, then the
burden of proof lies on the defendant & it is the duty of the trial court to inquire into it & pass an
appropriate order. But no objection will be allowed by any appellate or revisional court unless
three conditions mentioned under Section 21 co-exist.

In Bank of Baroda v. Moti Bhai [AIR 1985 SC 545] the plaintiff Bank lent a certain amount to
the defendant in the usual course of its commercial business. As a collateral security, the bank
obtained a hypothecation bond and a deed of mortgage from the defendant under the Tenancy Act
conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the Revenue court. When the suit was filed in the civil court
for recovery of amount, it was contended by the defendant that the civil court had no jurisdiction
to try the suit. The Supreme Court observed that the business of the bank was to lend money and
the suit filed by the bank was for the recovery of the amount due to it by the defendant on the basis
of the promissory note executed by the defendant. The main relief sought by the bank was that the
suit should be decreed for repayment of amount. Therefore, the civil court had jurisdiction to
entertain the suit filed by the bank. On the question of jurisdiction, one must always have regard
to the substance of the matter and not to the form of the suit.

Later in Abdulla Bin Ali v. Galappa [AIR 1985 SC 577] the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration
of title and for possession and mesne profits treating the defendants as trespassers. The defendants
contended that the civil court had no jurisdiction since he was a tenant. The Supreme Court HELD
that jurisdiction does not depend upon the defence taken by the defendants in the written statement.
Hence, the present suit lies only in Civil Court & not in Revenue Court.

WHO WILL DECIDE THE JURISDICTION

Whenever the jurisdiction of a Court is challenged or arises, then that Court has inherent power to
decide the said question with the initial assumption of jurisdiction by that Court. Every Court or
tribunal is not only entitled but bound to determine whether the matter in which it is asked to
exercise its jurisdiction comes within its jurisdiction or not.

Similarly, where a tribunal derives its jurisdiction from the statute that creates it and imposes
conditions under which it can function, it goes without saying that before the tribunal assumes
jurisdiction in a matter, it must be satisfied that those conditions in fact exist. Such facts are known
as preliminary or jurisdictional facts.

Page 3 of 21
 VIDHI ERA Legal Consultancy & Law Institute

Presumption as to Jurisdiction -

The 5 Judges bench of the Supreme Court in Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 1969
SC 1718] HELD that even presumption should be made in favour of jurisdiction of the court and
the provision of exclusion jurisdiction must be strictly construed. Courts will always lean to the
interpretation which would maintain the jurisdiction of the court. The party who doubts the
jurisdiction of the court has to prove that the court has no jurisdiction. Exclusion of jurisdiction
must be clear.

Hence, the exclusion of civil court’s jurisdiction must not be readily inferred. The statute ousting
jurisdiction of civil court must do so in express terms or by use of such terms as would necessarily
lead to such inference.

JURISDICTION & CONSENT

It is well settled principle that consent can neither confer nor take away jurisdiction of the Court.
The 7 Judges bench of the Supreme Court in A.R Antulay v. R.S. Nayak [AIR 1988 SC 1531]
HELD that 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 right of appeal. The 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.

Further, if the Court has no inherent jurisdiction, then no amount of waiver, acquiescence or
estoppel can create it. Modi Entertainment Network v. W.S.G. Cricket Pvt. Ltd. [(2003) 4 SCC
341]

Similarly, when the Court has jurisdiction to decide the dispute, it cannot be taken away or ousted
by the consent of the parties. An agreement to oust absolutely the jurisdiction of the court would
be unlawful and void, being against public policy. But if two or more courts have concurrent
jurisdiction to try the suit, then it is open to the parties to select a particular forum and exclude the
other forums. Thus, the parties may agree among themselves that the suit should be brought in one
of those courts and not in the other, since there is no inherent lack of jurisdiction in the court. Such
an agreement would be legal, valid and enforceable. Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd.
[AIR 1971 SC 740]

KINDS OF JURISDICTION

Civil & Criminal Jurisdiction -

Civil jurisdiction is that which concerns and deals with disputes of a ‘civil nature’. The object is
to adequately compensate the aggrieved part. While Criminal jurisdiction relates to crimes and
punishes the wrong doer / offenders.

Page 4 of 21
 VIDHI ERA Legal Consultancy & Law Institute

Territorial or local Jurisdiction -

Every court has a certain local limit beyond which it cannot exercise its jurisdiction. These limits
are fixed by statute. For example - High Court has territorial jurisdiction within the State and
Supreme Court has jurisdiction throughout the territory of India. Sections (16 to 20) of the Code
deals with the territorial jurisdiction.

Pecuniary Jurisdiction -
Section 6 provides that a court will have jurisdiction only over those suits, the amount or value of
the subject matter of which does not exceed pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction. Some court have
unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction and others have jurisdiction to try the suit only up to a particular
amount. For example - CJSD have unlimited jurisdiction in UP, Bihar & Maharashtra.

Further, Section 15 provides that every suit shall be instituted in a court of lowest grade competent
to try it.

Subject matter Jurisdiction -

Different courts have been empowered to decide different types of suits or subject matter. Certain
courts can decide only a particular subject matter. For example - Insolvency Court can decide
matters relating to insolvency, Family Courts can decide matters relating to matrimonial disputes
only. A Presidency Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction to try suits for specific performance of
a contract, partition of immovable property, foreclosure or redemption of a mortgage, etc.
Similarly, in respect of testamentary matters, divorce cases, probate proceedings, insolvency
proceedings, etc., only the District Judge or CJSD has jurisdiction.

Thus, decree passed by the court without subject matter jurisdiction is a nullity because it amounts
to inherent lack of jurisdiction.

Exclusive & Concurrent Jurisdiction -

Exclusive jurisdiction confers the sole power on one court or tribunal to try, deal with and decide
a case. No other court or authority can render a judgment or give a decision in the case or class of
cases.

Concurrent or co-ordinate jurisdiction may be exercised by different courts or authorities between

the same parties, at the same time and over the same subject-matter. It is, therefore, open to a
litigant to invoke jurisdiction of any of such court or authority.

General & Special Jurisdiction -

General jurisdiction extends to all cases comprised within a class or classes of causes / subject-
matter. Special or limited jurisdiction, on the other hand, is jurisdiction which is confined to
special, particular or limited causes.

Page 5 of 21
 VIDHI ERA Legal Consultancy & Law Institute

Legal & Equitable Jurisdiction -

Legal jurisdiction is a jurisdiction exercised by Common Law Courts in England, while equitable
jurisdiction is a jurisdiction exercised by Equity Courts. The Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar
Sharma v. Santosh Kumari [AIR 2008 SC 171] HELD that the Courts in India exercise
jurisdiction both in law as well as equity, but exercise of equity jurisdiction is always subject to
the provisions of law. Equity jurisdiction can be exercised only when no law operates in the field.

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

The fundamental principle of English law ubi jus ibi remedium i.e., wherever there is a right, there
is a remedy has been adopted in the Indian legal system. Accordingly, if a person has a right, which
has been violated then that person can pursue appropriate remedy to redress the violation of his
right. Thus, every person has an inherent right to approach the competent court if he feels that his
right has been violated. Section 9 is legislative manifestation of the maxim ubi jus ibi remedium,
which provides for the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in reference to subject matter.

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.

NATURE & SCOPE

The word “shall” used in the section makes it mandatory. Hence, no court can refuse to exercise
the jurisdiction if the conditions mentioned in the section are fulfilled.

The Supreme Court in Abdul Gafur v. State of Uttrakhand [AIR 2009 SC 413] observed that
under Section 9 every person has an inherent right to file a suit if conditions of Section 9 are met.
Further, in Robust Hotels Pvt Ltd v EIH Ltd. [(2017) 1 SCC 622] Supreme Court HELD that
the civil court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate civil disputes is unlimited (i.e., plenary in nature),
subject only to limitations imposed by law either expressly or by necessary implications.

After careful perusal, it is evident that Section 9 has both positive and negative aspect. The positive
aspect is found in 1st half of the section which opens the door widely, by empowering civil courts

Page 6 of 21
 VIDHI ERA Legal Consultancy & Law Institute

to entertain all suits of a civil nature. The negative aspect is to be found in the latter half which
debars entry. Thus, the jurisdiction of the Court emerging from Section 9 is not an absolute one,
but contains inbuilt restrictions.

The two explanations, one existing since inception and later inserted in 1976 bring out clearly the
legislative intent of extending operation of the section to such religious matters where right to
property or office is involved irrespective of whether any fee is attached to the office or not. The
language used is simple but explicit and clear.

CONDITIONS TO BE FULFILLED TO INVOKE SECTION 9

A Civil Court has jurisdiction to try a suit if two conditions are fulfilled -

a) The suit must be of a civil nature; and

b) The cognizance of such a suit should not have been expressly or impliedly barred.

SUIT OF CIVIL NATURE:

The term “civil” has not been defined in the Code. But according to the dictionary meaning, it
pertains to private / civil rights and remedies of a citizen as distinguished from criminal, political,
religious etc. Historically the two broad classifications were civil and criminal. Revenue, tax and
company etc. were added to it later. But they too pertain to the larger family of ‘civil’. Its width
has further been stretched by using the word ‘nature’ along with it. That means even those suits
are cognizable which are not only civil but are even of civil nature. The term “nature” means the
fundamental qualities of a person or thing; identity or essential character. Thus, it is wider in
content.

In Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma [AIR 1995 SC 2001] Supreme
Court HELD that the expression ‘civil nature’ is wider than the expression ‘civil proceedings’.
Thus, a suit is of civil nature if the principal question therein relates to the determination of a civil
right and its enforcement. The section would be available in every case where the dispute has the
characteristic of affecting one’s rights, which are not only civil but of civil nature. The subject
matter of the suit and not the status of parties determine whether the suit is of civil nature or not.

Hence, pure political, religious or social questions are not covered by the expression “suit of civil
nature”. But according to Explanation I of Section 9, if the principal question in a suit is of a civil
nature (i.e., the right to property or to an office) and the adjudication incidentally involves the
determination relating to a caste question or to religious rights and ceremonies, it does not cease
to be a suit of a civil nature and the jurisdiction of a civil court is not barred. Thus, the Court has
jurisdiction to adjudicate upon subsidiary questions also in order to decide the principal question
which is of a civil nature.

Page 7 of 21
 VIDHI ERA Legal Consultancy & Law Institute

In District Council of UBMC v. Salvador Nicholas Mathias [(1988) 2 SCC 31] Supreme Court
HELD that right to worship is a civil right, interference with which raises a dispute of a civil
nature, though disputes which are in respect of rituals or ceremonies alone cannot be adjudicated
by civil courts if they are not essentially connected with civil rights of an individual or a sect on
behalf of whom a suit is filed.

Suits in which the principal question is a caste question are not suits of a civil nature

A caste is any well-defined native community be it Hindu or Mohamedan are governed for certain
internal purposes by its own rules and regulations. A caste question is one which relates to matters
affecting the internal autonomy of the caste and its social relations.

Expulsion from the caste and exclusion from social privileges are two different concepts and
involve different considerations. The former deprives the aggrieved person of a legal right which
forms part of his status and the latter a social privilege i.e., matters of caste autonomy which the
caste can deny or enforce. The Civil Courts have the jurisdiction to decide on the validity of
expulsion or ex-communication of a person from a religious order because it deprive a person of
the right to worship, which is a fundamental right.

Thus, a caste may pass a resolution depriving a member of invitation to dinner or other ceremonies
for an alleged breach of a caste rule. The excluded member has no remedy in law, for all that he
has lost is a social privilege, and not a legal right. Similarly, a member of a caste is not entitled to
any remedy in law if the other members refuse to go to his house on the occasion of a death or
marriage in his family and to assist him. A Civil Court has no power by its decree to compel the
members of a caste to invite a casteman to dinner or to any ceremony.

Illustrations of Suits of Civil Nature -

a) Suits relating to rights to property;

b) Suits relating to rights of worship;
c) Suits relating to taking out of religious or other processions;
d) Suits relating to right to shares in offerings; (only fees & not gratuities)
e) Suits relating to right of burial;
f) Suits for specific performance of contracts or for damages for breach of contracts;
g) Suits for restitution of conjugal rights or dissolution of marriages;
h) Suits for rents or for accounts;
i) Suits for rights of franchise;
j) Suits for rights to hereditary offices;
k) Suits for rights to Yajmanvritis;
l) Suits against wrongful dismissals from service and for salaries, etc.

Page 8 of 21
 VIDHI ERA Legal Consultancy & Law Institute

Illustrations of Suits not of Civil Nature -

a) Suits involving principally caste questions;

b) Suits involving purely religious rites or ceremonies;
c) Suits for upholding mere dignity or honour;
d) Suits for recovery of voluntary payments or offerings;
e) Suits relating to merely political questions.

NOTE: It is a question of fact to be decided by the court based on evidence on case-to-case basis.

Explanation II inserted by the Amendment Act of 1976 clarified that a suit relating to a religious
office is maintainable whether or not it carries any fees or whether or not it is attached to a
particular place. But, to constitute an office there must be duties attached to it which the holder
can be compelled to perform. Accordingly, it has been held by hon’ble Supreme Court that

• the right which a person claims to lead a horse in a religious procession was not an office
but merely an honour because he could not be compelled to do so.
• the right to hold a lighted torch inside the chariot during a religious procession was a mere
dignity not attached to an office as there was no obligation to perform the service.
• A suit for declaration of the right to receive prasadam while the image of the deity was
taken in procession.

The law on the subject was considered by the Supreme Court in Sri Sinna Ramanuja Jeer v. Sri
Ranga Ramanuja Jeers [AIR 1961 SC 1720] and summarized as below:

a) A suit for a declaration with respect to religious honours and privileges simpliciter will not
lie in a civil court;
b) but, a suit to establish one’s right to an office in a temple and to honours, privileges,
remuneration or perquisites attached to the said office is maintainable in a civil court;
c) the essential condition for the existence of an office is that the holder of the alleged office
shall be under legal obligation to discharge the duties attached to the said office and for the
non-observance of which he may be visited with penalties.

Accordingly, it was HELD that a theerthakar who had no obligations to perform did not hold an
office and a suit by him for honours was not maintainable.

BAR TO JURISDICTION:

The Court has jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature unless the jurisdiction has been expressly
or impliedly barred or taken away. The Legislatures are only competent to divest a Court from the
jurisdiction and confer jurisdiction to another court under Section 9. Therefore, it may happen the
suit is of civil nature but the legislature has taken away jurisdiction from the civil court and vested

Page 9 of 21
 VIDHI ERA Legal Consultancy & Law Institute

it in a special court. In that case that special court will have jurisdiction to try the suit. For example
- matrimonial disputes (divorce, judicial separation, nullity of marriage and alike) are disputes of
civil nature but the suit cannot be filed in ordinary civil courts because the legislature has enacted
Family Courts for that purpose. Despite being a suit of civil nature, the matter is to be adjudicated
by Family Court and not ordinary civil court. Bar contemplated by Section 9 is of two types:

1) Express bar
2) Implied bar

Express bar - A suit is said to be expressly barred when it is barred by any enactment for the time
being in force. It is open to the legislature to bar jurisdiction of civil courts with respect to a
particular class of matters. Thus, matters falling within exclusive jurisdiction of Industrial
Tribunal, Income Tax Tribunal, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal etc. are expressly barred from
the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.

Implied bar - A suit is said to be impliedly barred when it is barred by general principles of law
or on grounds of public policy. When a specific remedy is given in a statute, it deprives the person
from instituting a civil suit. Certain suits are also barred on the basis of public policy.

The Supreme Court in South Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Today Homes and
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., [(2020) 12 SCC 680] HELD that civil court’s jurisdiction is barred by
necessary implication where right and liability is created by statute and that statute provides
machinery for enforcement of such right and where the statute gives finality to such orders of the
special tribunals, the civil court’s jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there is adequate
remedy to do what civil court would normally do in a suit.

In Dhruv Green Fields Ltd v. Hukam Singh [(2002) 6 SCC 416] Supreme Court HELD that
where there is no express bar, but a statutory provision implies exclusion of jurisdiction, the
jurisdiction cannot be excluded unless the statute also provides an adequate, efficacious and
alternative remedy.

EXCLUSION OF JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT

LIMITATIONS:

The Privy Council in Secretary of State v. Mask & Co. [AIR 1940 PC 105] held that the
exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil courts is not to be readily inferred, even when the
jurisdiction of a civil court is barred, either expressly or by necessary implication, it cannot be
said that the jurisdiction is altogether excluded. A Court has jurisdiction to examine whether the
provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder have or have not been complied with, or the
order is contrary to law, mala fide, ultra vires, perverse, arbitrary, violative of the principles of

Page 10 of 21
 VIDHI ERA Legal Consultancy & Law Institute

natural justice, or is based on ‘no evidence’ and so on. In all these cases, the order cannot be said
to be under the Act but is de hors the Act and the jurisdiction of a civil court is not ousted.

PRINCIPLES:

The 5 Judges bench of the Supreme Court in Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 1969
SC 1718] laid down the following guidelines regarding exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Courts -

1) If the statute gives finality to the orders of special tribunal, the civil court’s jurisdiction must
be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what civil courts would normally
do in a suit. However, such provision does not exclude those cases where the provisions of
a particular Act have not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted in
conformity with fundamental principles of judicial procedure.
2) Where there is no express exclusion of the jurisdiction of the court, the examination of
efficacy of remedies must be made by analyzing the scheme of the Act. It is important to see
whether the statute provides for determination of all rights and remedies provided in the
statute.
3) Challenge to the provisions of a particular Act as ultra vires cannot be brought before the
tribunals constituted under that Act.
4) Where the Act contains no machinery for refund of tax collected in excess, a suit lies.
5) An exclusion of jurisdiction of civil court is not readily to be inferred unless these conditions
apply.

PECUNIARY JURISDICTION

Section 15 provides that every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent
to try it.

There is twofold object behind this provision:

i) to see that the Courts of higher grades shall not be overburdened with suits; and
ii) to afford convenience to the parties and witnesses who may be examined in such suits.

The rule laid down in this section is a rule of procedure and does not affect the inherent jurisdiction
of the Court. Hence, a decree passed by a Court of a higher grade cannot be said to be without
jurisdiction. It is merely an irregularity covered by Section 99 and the decree passed by the court
is not a nullity. Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan [AIR 1954 SC 340]

MODE OF VALUATION

Prima facie, it is the plaintiff’s valuation in the plaint that determines the jurisdiction of the court,
and neither the reply of the defendant in his written statement nor the amount for which ultimately

Page 11 of 21
 VIDHI ERA Legal Consultancy & Law Institute

the decree may be passed by the Court. Thus, if the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court of the lowest
grade is Rs 10,000/- and the plaintiff files a suit for rendition of accounts and finally the court 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.

PECUNIARY LIMITS OF CIVIL COURTS

STATE DESIGNATION OF JUDGE PECUNIARY JURISDICTION

Addl. Civil Judge Junior Division upto 1 lakh

Uttar Pradesh Civil Judge Junior Division upto 5 lakhs
Civil Judge Senior Division more than 5 lakhs upto ∞
Civil Judge Junior Division upto 5 lakhs
Maharashtra
Civil Judge Senior Division more than 5 lakhs upto ∞
Civil Judge Junior Division upto 1 lakh
Goa
Civil Judge Senior Division more than 1 lakh upto ∞
Civil Judge Junior Division upto 1.5 lakh
Bihar
Civil Judge Senior Division more than 1.5 lakhs upto ∞
Civil Judge Second Class upto 5 lakhs
Madhya Pradesh Civil Judge First Class more than 5 lakhs & upto 1 crore
Additional District Judge / DJ more than 1 crore upto ∞
Civil Judge Second Class upto 5 lakhs
Chhattisgarh Civil Judge First Class more than 5 lakhs & upto 10 lakhs
Additional District Judge / DJ more than 10 lakhs upto ∞
Civil Judge Junior Division upto 3 lakhs
Rajasthan Civil Judge Senior Division more than 3 lakhs & upto 5 lakhs
Additional District Judge / DJ more than 5 lakhs upto ∞
Civil Judge Junior Division upto 10 lakhs
Civil Judge Senior Division more than 10 lakhs & upto 20 lakhs
Himachal Pradesh
Additional District Judge / DJ more than 20 lakhs & upto 30 lakhs
High Court more than 30 lakhs upto ∞
Civil Judge upto 3 lakhs
Senior Civil Judge upto 3 lakhs
Delhi
Additional District Judge / DJ more than 3 lakhs & upto 2 crores
High Court more than 2 crores upto ∞

NOTE: The Small Causes Court have jurisdiction upto 1 lakh & Rs. 25,000/- (money suit) in U.P.

Page 12 of 21
 VIDHI ERA Legal Consultancy & Law Institute

Jurisdictions exercised by the District & Session Judges:

District & Session Judge

District Judge Sessions Judge

(appointed by the Governor in (appointed by the concerned HC
consultation with HC under Art. 233) under Section 9(2) of CrPC

Original Appellate Revisional Original Appellate Revisional

(not under the CPC [as per Sec. 374(3)
(upto 25 Lakhs (provided only in [as per Sec. 28(2) [as per Sec.
or Civil Courts Act of CrPC against any
but under special in U.P.) State of U.P. by of CrPC, any 395 of CrPC]
sentence passed by
statutes if expressly Civil Courts Act sentence ASJ / MM / JMFC /
provided) upto 5 Lakhs) authorised by law] JMSC]

NOTE: Thus, District & Session Judge is appointed by the Governor in concurrence with the
concerned High Court.

TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

For the purpose of territorial jurisdiction of Civil Courts, suits may be divided into 4 classes:

i) Suits in respect of immovable property; [Sections (16 to 18)]

ii) Suits for movable property; [Section 19]
iii) Suits for compensation for wrong (tort); [Section 19] and
iv) Other suits (Residuary). [Section 20]

SUITS IN RESPECT OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY

Sections (16 to 18) deal with suits relating to immovable property. Section 16 prescribes that the
suit will lie where the property is situated. Hence it provides for following kinds of suits:

a) for recovery of immovable property with or without rent or profits,

b) for the partition of immovable property,
c) for foreclosure, sale or redemption in case of mortgage of a charge upon immovable
property,
d) for determination of any other right or interest in immovable property,
e) for compensations for wrong to immovable property,
f) for recovery of movable property under distraint or attachment.

Page 13 of 21
 VIDHI ERA Legal Consultancy & Law Institute

Section 16 recognizes a well-established principle that actions against immovable property should
be brought in the forum where the property is situated subject to pecuniary and other limitations
prescribed by law. Hence, a Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the property is not situated,
has no power to deal with and decide the rights or interest arising out of such property.

However, Proviso to Section 16 provides that a suit to obtain relief with respect to immovable
property or compensation for wrong done to such property held by or on behalf of defendant may,
where the relief sought can be entirely obtained through his personal obedience, be instituted in
the Court within whose jurisdiction

a) property is situated, or
b) defendant resides or carries on business or personally works for gain.

Proviso of Section 16 is based on the maxim equity acts in personam. The expression ‘personal
obedience’ must be interpreted with special reference to the fact that the defendants reside or work
within the jurisdiction of the Court whose order is to be obeyed, the obedience must be as the
defendants could render without going beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. The proviso is an
exception to the main part and it cannot be interpreted or construed to enlarge the scope of the
main part. It would apply only when the suit falls within one of the categories specified in main
part of the Section and the relief sought can be entirely obtained by personal obedience.

Illustration - Brad and Jenifer jointly own a house in Sonipat, Haryana. Brad is an advocate
practicing in Delhi, but he also has a business of manufacturing video games in Bombay. After his
divorce with Jenifer, Brad stayed in the same house and Jenifer shifted to Pune. But Jenifer is still
in love with Brad and keeps a tab on him though her spies. She finds out that Brad has started
dating a colleague from work called Angelica and intends to gift her the house which is jointly
owned by her and Brad in Sonipat. She wants to stop Brad from gifting the house to Angelica.

What can Jenifer do? Can she approach the Court by filing the suit?

Yes, when conflict is associated with the determination of rights and duties or any other matter
related to immovable property, a suit can be filed in the court where the property is situated. In the
present scenario, since the house is situated in Sonipat, Jenifer can file a suit in a court in the
district of Sonipat.

The next question for consideration is, whether this is the only option available to Jennifer? Are
there any other places where she can file a suit to stop Brad from gifting the house to Angelica?

To find out the answer, the 1st step is to identify the nature of relief requested by Jennifer. She
wants court to issue an order against Brad for not transferring the house to Angelica in any manner.
Assuming the court decided in favour of Jennifer, the only thing Brad would be required to do for
obeying the court’s decision is to abstain from gifting the house to Angelica. Hence, Brad does not

Page 14 of 21
 VIDHI ERA Legal Consultancy & Law Institute

have to perform any specific acts for which he has to go outside the territory of court imposing it.
For instance - he is not required to put in extra effort, such as traveling to another place for registry
of land or for submitting certain documents related to land. Hence, granting Jennifer the relief will
not cause any inconvenience to Brad. These kinds of relief are called equitable remedies. People
who are directed to perform such decisions can satisfy them simply by abstaining from transferring
the property to someone else. These acts are termed as acts of personal obedience.

Properties situated within jurisdiction of different Courts:

Section 17 provides that where the immovable property is situated within the jurisdiction of
different courts, the suit may be instituted in any court within whose jurisdiction any portion of
the property is situate provided that entire case is cognizable by such court.

The object of Section 17 is to avoid multiplicity of suits and for the benefit / convenience of parties.
However, this section does not bar the parties to bring separate suits where the properties are
situated in different jurisdiction. Thus, Section 17 is only permissive in nature, which empowers
the court to entertain the suit of immovable property located in different jurisdiction. Hence, this
section is supplementary to provisions of Section 16.

In Shivnarayan (D) by LRs. v. Maniklal (D) by LRs. [2019 (2) ALT (SC) 35] Supreme Court
HELD that a suit in respect to immovable property or properties situated in jurisdiction of different
courts may be instituted in any court within whose local limits of jurisdiction, any portion of the
property or one or more properties may be situated. The interpretation of the word ‘portion of
property’ in Section 17 cannot only be understood in a limited and restrictive sense of being
portion of one property situated in jurisdiction of two courts.

Example - A claims for the sale of B’s two mortgaged houses situated at Chhapra and
Muzaffarpur. Since sale of mortgage property falls within Section 16, the suit may be
filed where the property is situated, i.e., either at Chhapra or at Muzaffarpur.

Uncertainty as to local limits of jurisdiction of different Courts:

Section 18(1) provides that where it is uncertain, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any
immovable property is situated, any one of those courts may, if satisfied of such alleged
uncertainty, record the statement to that effect and thereupon proceed to try and dispose of such
suit after having regard to the nature and value of suit to exercise jurisdiction.

SUITS FOR MOVABLE PROPERTY

Section 19 is based on the maxim mobilia sequuntur personam i.e., movable follow the person. It
incorporates the same principle and provides that a suit for compensation for wrong done to
movable property may be brought at the option of the plaintiff either at place where:

Page 15 of 21
 VIDHI ERA Legal Consultancy & Law Institute

a) wrong is committed; or
b) the defendant resides, carries on business or personally works for gain.

Exception: Section 16(f) - recovery of movable property under distraint or attachment.

Example - a suit for compensation for wrong done to movable property at A, where the plaintiff
resides at B and defendant at C, may be filed either at A, where the wrong was done or at
C where defendant resides. But no suit will lie at B where the plaintiff resides.

SUITS FOR COMPENSATION FOR WRONGS

Section 19 also provides that a suit for compensation for wrong to a person may be instituted at
the option of plaintiff either where:

a) wrong is committed; or
b) the defendant resides, carries on business or personally works for gain.

But where such wrong consists of a series of acts, a suit can be filed at any place where any of the
acts has been committed. Similarly, where a wrongful act is committed at one place and the
consequences ensue at another place, a suit can be instituted at the option of the plaintiff where the
action took place or consequences ensued.

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 to B. B may sue A
either in Calcutta or in Delhi.
c) A, residing in Delhi, publishes in Calcutta statements defamatory to B. The newspaper
is circulated in Bombay, Madras and Raipur. B may sue A either in Calcutta, or in Delhi,
or in Bombay, or in Madras, or in Raipur.

OTHER SUITS

Section 20 provides for the cases not covered by any of the foregoing Sections (16 to 19). All such
suits may be filed at the plaintiff’s option in any of the following Courts, viz.:

a) where the cause of action, wholly or partly arises; or

b) where the defendant resides or carries on business or personally works for gain; or
c) where there are two or more defendants, any of them resides or carries on business or
personally works for gain provided that in such a case either the leave of court is obtained
or the defendant who do not reside or carry-on business or personally work for gain at that
place acquiesce in such institution of suit.

Page 16 of 21
 VIDHI ERA Legal Consultancy & Law Institute

OBJECT: The Supreme Court in Laxman Prasad v. Prodigy Electronics Ltd. [AIR 2008 SC
685] HELD that Section 20 has been designed to secure that justice might be brought as near as
possible to every man’s hearthstone and that the defendant should not be put to the trouble and
expense of travelling long distances in order to defend himself in cases in which he may be
involved.

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 India 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.
b) A resides at Shimla, B at Calcutta and C at Delhi. A, B and C being together at Banaras, B
and C make a joint promissory note payable on demand, and deliver it to A. A may sue B
and C at Banaras, where the cause of action arose. He may also sue them at Calcutta, where
B resides, or at Delhi, where C resides; but in each of these cases, if the non-resident
defendant objects, the suit cannot proceed without the leave of the Court.

Cause of Action - The expression ‘cause of action’ may be defined as the fact or set of facts which
entitles a party to seek redressal in a Court of law. Every fact which is necessary to be proved,
comprises in cause of action. So, a suit may be filed at a place where cause of action wholly or
partly arises. In South East Asia Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Nav Bharat Enterprises Pvt. Ltd and
Ors. [(1996) 3 SCR 405] Supreme Court observed that ‘cause of action’ consist of bundle of facts
which gives the cause to enforce the legal process in the court for redressal. It is a bundle of
material facts which the plaintiff must prove in order to succeed.

Example - In case of contract, the cause of action will consist of making of contract and its breach
at a place where it is to be performed. So, an action for breach of contract can be brought
either at the place where contract was entered into or at the place where breach was
committed. Similarly, a suit for recovery of arrears of rent is based on a contract and is
therefore triable either at the place where contract is made or breach is committed.

Two or more defendants - Where there are two or more defendants, the suit may be filed at any
place where any of them resides, carries on business or personally works for gain provided:

a) The leave of Court is obtained; or

b) The defendant who does not reside or carry-on business or personally work for gain
acquiesce in such institution.

Actually and voluntarily resides - The expression means that there must be an intention to
permanently reside at a particular place. Factum of residence accompanied by animus i.e., intention

Page 17 of 21
 VIDHI ERA Legal Consultancy & Law Institute

to reside must be seen. If a person has several residences across the country, then he will be said
to actually and voluntarily reside at the place where he usually resides for a larger part of his life.
The expression does not contemplate a casual visit with no intention for permanent residence.

Carries on business - The expression means carrying on series of commercial transactions for
making profit. The element of continuity must be there. It must connote permanence and regularity
and not an isolated activity.

Personally works for gain - The expression refers to the place of work of the person. The person
must work for some monetary benefit. In this situation the person should actually be present at the
place of working.

Explanation to Section 20: Place of business of Corporation -

It provides that a corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole 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. In respect of company or corporation, there are two choices available:

a) place of business of company &

b) place where cause of action arises.

In Patel Roadways Ltd. v. Prasad Trading Company [(1991) 4 SCC 270] and New Moga
Transport Company v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. [(2004) 4 SCC 677] Supreme
Court HELD that Explanation to Section 20 does not make any reference to cause of action. It only
talks about the place of business of corporation. Hence, it does not control the main section.
Therefore, following situations are possible:

1) If the company has only one sole or principal office - In such a situation, the place of
business will be where a sole office is situated and the suit can be filed where the sole office
a situated or where cause of action arises. Example, if a company has sole office at Mumbai,
then the place of business will be only Mumbai. However, the breach of contract occurs at
Pune i.e., cause of action arises at Pune then suit can be filed either at Mumbai or Pune.

2) If the company has various branch or subordinate offices - In such a situation if the cause
of action has not arisen at any of the branch office, then the suit can be filed at the principal
office or where the cause of action arises. Example, if headquarter of company is at Mumbai
& branch/subordinate office at Aurangabad, then place of business will be Aurangabad and
Mumbai both. Breach of contract occurs at Pune where there is no branch office. Suit can be
filed only at Mumbai or Pune.

3) Where company has branch office and cause of action arises at branch office - In such
a case the suit can be instituted at the place where the company has branch office where the

Page 18 of 21
 VIDHI ERA Legal Consultancy & Law Institute

cause of action arises. The phrase ‘at such place’ refers to this situation. Example,
headquarter of company is at Mumbai & its branches are in Aurangabad & Pune. Breach of
contract occurs at Pune. Then suit can be filed only at Pune as it is both the place of business
as well as the place where cause of action arose.

FORUM SHOPPING

Forum shopping is a practice where litigants file their legal case in a Court which they believe is
probable of providing a favourable verdict. Thus, choosing the jurisdiction of the Court as per the
convenience of the parties. The Supreme Court has heavily criticized the growing tendency of
forum shopping. It happens in following two ways -

1) by an agreement between the parties to oust the jurisdiction of a particular Court or confer
a jurisdiction on a particular Court; or
2) by intentionally increasing or decreasing the valuation in the plaint so as to bring the matter
within the jurisdiction of the Court.

As we know that, it is a well-settled principle of law that consent can neither confer nor take away
jurisdiction of a competent Court. The same principle applies to ouster of jurisdiction of a Court.
Where the Court has jurisdiction, neither consent, nor waiver, nor estoppel, nor acquiescence can
oust it. An agreement to oust absolutely the jurisdiction of a competent Court is void, being against
public policy.

With regard to the 1st point, the Supreme Court in Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd. [AIR
1971 SC 740] HELD that when two or more courts have jurisdiction to entertain a suit, an
agreement by the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of any one of such courts to the exclusion of
other is valid and binding.

With regard to the 2nd point, usually Courts accept the valuation of plaintiff but that does not give
liberty to the plaintiff to assign arbitrary valuation to the suit. If the plaintiff deliberately
undervalues or overvalues the claim for the purpose of choosing the forum then it is the duty of
the Court to reject the plaint after giving adequate opportunity to correct the valuation of suit.

In Isha Distribution House (P) Ltd. v. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. [(2019) 12 SCC 205] Supreme
Court HELD that the question as to territorial jurisdiction is a mixed question of fact and law. The
plea is required to be taken in a written statement. Once plea is raised, issues are to be framed
and answered accordingly.

OBJECTIONS AS TO JURISDICTION

It is fundamental rule that a decree of a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity. But there is always
a distinction between want of jurisdiction (i.e., inherent / subject-matter lack) and irregular

Page 19 of 21
 VIDHI ERA Legal Consultancy & Law Institute

exercise of jurisdiction (i.e., territorial or pecuniary lack). If there is inherent lack of jurisdiction,
the decree passed by a Civil Court is a nullity and that nullity can be set up in any collateral
proceedings. However, if a Court has inherent jurisdiction but it is irregularly exercised, the defect
does not go to the root of the matter, and the error, if any, in exercising the jurisdiction can be
remedied in appeal or revision and when no such remedy is availed of, the decision is final.

The Supreme Court in Seth Hiralal Patni v. Sri Kali Nath [AIR 1962 SC 199] HELD that the
objection as to local or pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court does not stand on same footing as to
the competence of a court to try a case. Competence of a court to try a case goes to the very root
of the jurisdiction and wherever it lacks, it is inherent lack of jurisdiction.

Further, in Sneh Lata Goel v. Pushplata [(2019) 3 SCC 594] Supreme Court HELD that section
21 of the Code makes it clear that the objection as to want of territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction
does not go to the root of the jurisdiction. Hence, it does not constitute inherent lack of jurisdiction.

OBJECTION AS TO TERRITORIAL & PECUNIARY JURISDICTION:

Section 21 lays down the rule regarding objection as to territorial & pecuniary jurisdiction of Civil
Courts. The object underlying Section 21 is to protect honest litigants and to avoid harassment to
plaintiffs who have bona fide and in good-faith initiated proceedings in a court which is later on
found to be wanting in jurisdiction. Dishonest litigants cannot take advantage of this provision.

Sections [21(1) & 21(2)] provide that no objection as to the place of suing or pecuniary jurisdiction
shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court:

a) unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible
opportunity; and
b) in all cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement; and
c) unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.

All these conditions must co-exist.

Example - A files a suit against B to recover possession of a house. He values his claim in the
plaint at Rs. 8000/-. The suit is filed in court C, which has jurisdiction to try suits of a
value up to Rs 10,000/-. The market value of the house is Rs 12,000/-, but B does not
object to the jurisdiction of the Court. The decree is passed in favour of A. In appellate
court, B cannot take the objection about the pecuniary jurisdiction of Court C.

The Supreme Court in Om Prakash Agrawal v. Vishan Dayal Rajpoor [(2019) 14 SCC 526]
HELD that the policy underlying Section 21 is that when the case has been tried by a court on
merits and the judgment hat been rendered, it should not be liable to be reversed purely on
technical grounds, unless it resulted in failure of justice.

Page 20 of 21
 VIDHI ERA Legal Consultancy & Law Institute

In Bahrein Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. P.J. Pappu [AIR 1966 SC 634] Supreme Court HELD that
the condition “unless there has been a consequent failure of justice” implies that at the time when
the objection is taken in the appellate or revisional court, the suit has already been tried on merits.

OBJECTION AS TO EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS:

Section 21(3) provides that no objection as to the local limits of jurisdiction of the executing court
shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court:

a) unless such objection was taken in the executing court at the earliest possible opportunity;
and
b) unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.

The Supreme Court in Harshad CL Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd. [AIR 2005 SC 4446] HELD
that if objection is not taken at the earlier possible opportunity, then the same cannot be taken at
a later stage.

BAR ON NEW SUIT TO SET ASIDE DECREE ON OBJECTION AS TO

PLACE OF SUING

Section 21A inserted by Amendment Act of 1976 provides that no new suit can be filed to set
aside a decree passed by the Court on an objection as to place of suing.

The provision seems to be ambiguous, defective and incomplete. As, it speaks of place of suing
(territorial limits) only and does not deal with pecuniary limits or defects. However, it is submitted
that the principle applicable to territorial defects will pro tanto apply to pecuniary defects as well.

The Supreme Court in Subhash Mahadevasa v. Nemasa Ambasa Dharmadas [AIR 2007 SC
1828] observed that ‘objection as to place of suing’ includes objection based on pecuniary
jurisdiction as well.

Page 21 of 21