Place of Suing under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908

Introduction

The “place of suing” is a fundamental concept in civil litigation, determining the

appropriate court in which a lawsuit should be filed. This concept is addressed in Sections
15 to 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The provisions ensure that cases are
brought before courts that are competent both in terms of territorial and pecuniary
jurisdiction, thereby promoting the efficient and fair resolution of disputes.

What is the Place of Suing in CPC?

The place of suing in CPC refers to the location or venue 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 CPC
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.

Provisions for Place of Suing under CPC

The place of suing in CPC is discussed under Sections 15 to 20. Section 15 pertains
specifically to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. Sections 16 to 18 address suits
concerning immovable property, Section 19 covers suits related to compensation for
wrongs and movable property, and Section 20 deals with suits concerning other matters.

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 the 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).

Objectives of Section 15:

 • Reducing the workload of higher courts.
• 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.

Case Law
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 CPC, 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.

Mazhar Husain and Anr. v. Nidhi Lal (1885):

The Allahabad High Court elucidated the objectives of Section 15, emphasizing the
avoidance of overburdening higher-grade courts and providing convenience to parties and
witnesses.

Tara Devi v. Sri Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj (1987):

The Supreme Court held that disregarding objective valuation criteria and assigning a value
to the relief sought can be arbitrary and irrational. In such cases, the court is justified in
intervening.

Sections 16 to 20: Place of Suing Based on Territorial Aspects

When examining the territorial jurisdiction of a court, it is important to consider the

following four types of suits:

• Suits related to immovable property: Governed by Sections 16-18 of the CPC.

• Suits related to movable property: Section 19 of the CPC.
• Suits related to compensation for wrongs: Section 19 of the CPC.
• Other suits: Section 20 of the CPC.
Place of Suing for Matters Involving Immovable Property (Sections 16-18)

Section 16
Section 16 of the CPC 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:

• Recovery of immovable property with or without rent or profits,

• Partition of immovable property,
• Foreclosure, sale, or redemption in the case of a mortgage or charge on immovable
property,
• Determination of any other right or interest in immovable property,
• Compensation for wrong to immovable property,
• Recovery of movable property that is currently under distraint or attachment.

However, if a suit seeks relief or compensation for wrong to immovable property held by or
on behalf of the defendant, and 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 where the defendant resides, carries on business, or works for gain.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
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. 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 allows invoking jurisdiction in five specific types of suits:

• Partition of immovable property

• Recovery of immovable property
• Torts to immovable property
• Determination of any right or interest in the property
• Sale, foreclosure, or redemption regarding a mortgage or charge on immovable
property

Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd. (2005):

The Supreme Court held that an action could be filed under Section 16 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.
Section 17
Section 17 deals with “Suits for immovable property situate within the jurisdiction of
different Courts”.

If the immovable property is situated within the local jurisdiction of different courts, a
lawsuit can be brought before any court within the jurisdiction where a portion of the
property is located. The court hearing the case will have cognizance over the entire claim.

Section 18
Section 18 deals with “Place of institution of suit where local limits of jurisdiction of Courts
are uncertain”.

• If it is uncertain within the local limits of the jurisdiction of which of two or more
courts any immovable property is situated, any one of those courts may, if satisfied
that there is ground for the alleged uncertainty, record a statement to that effect,
and proceed to entertain and dispose of the suit.
• If no statement is recorded and an objection is raised before a higher court, the
objection will only be entertained if there is no reasonable ground for uncertainty
when filing the suit, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

Section 19: Place of Suing in CPC for Matters Involving Movable Property and Compensation for
Wrongs

Section 19 deals with “Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables”.

• If a suit involves compensation for a wrong done to a person or movable property,

and the wrong occurred within the jurisdiction of one court while the defendant
resides, carries on business, or personally works for gain within the jurisdiction of
another court, the plaintiff can file the suit in either court.
• This provision allows the plaintiff to select the court based on their convenience or
strategic considerations when the wrong and the defendant’s location fall under
different court jurisdictions.

Section 20: Place of Suing in CPC for Other Suits

Section 20 deals with “Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of
action arises”.
Text of Section 20:

“Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a 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 I:
Where a person has a permanent dwelling at one place and a temporary residence at
another place, he shall be deemed to reside at both places in respect of any cause of action
arising at the place where he has such temporary residence.

Explanation II:
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.

Section 20 is a residuary section that addresses situations where the cause of action arises
from a breach of contract or business transactions. It provides flexibility to the plaintiff by
allowing them to choose the court that is most convenient or beneficial for their case when
the cause of action or the defendant’s location falls under the jurisdiction of different
courts.

Section 21: Objections to Jurisdiction for Place of Suing

Section 21 deals with “Objections to Jurisdiction”.

“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 are settled at or before such settlement, and
unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.”

Judicial Interpretations and Notable Case Laws

Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd. (1971)

The Supreme Court dealt with the issue of how the trial of a suit should proceed when
multiple courts have jurisdiction over it. The court held that if two courts have jurisdiction
to try a suit under the CPC, an agreement between the parties that the dispute be handled
in one of those courts is not against public policy. The agreement conferring jurisdiction on
the courts in Bombay to handle the arbitration proceedings was valid and enforceable.

M/s. Exl Careers and Another v. Frankfinn Aviation Services Private Limited (2020)
The Supreme Court examined the language of Order VII Rule 10-A in comparison to Section
24(2) and Section 25(3) of the CPC. The Court noted that the scheme outlined in Order VII
Rule 10 along with Rule 10-A does not grant discretion for retrial or continuation of
proceedings from the point of transfer or withdrawal. Instead, the proceedings must begin
anew.