Jurisdiction of Civil Courts

Indian Legal System > Civil Laws > The Code of Civil Procedure > Jurisdiction of Civil Courts

The Civil Procedure Code, 1908, does not define the term jurisdiction. In fact, none of the substantive or procedural laws seeks to define the term “jurisdiction”. The term “jurisdiction” is derived from two Latin words “ juris” and “ dicto” which means “I speak by the law”. The Black‘s Law Dictionary defines jurisdiction as: “a Court‘s power to decide a case or issue a decree.”  Jurisdiction means and includes any authority conferred by the law upon the court, tribunal or judge to decide or adjudicate any dispute between the parties or pass judgment or order. Whenever the suit is made before the court the initial issue is to decide whether the court has jurisdiction to deal with the matter. If the court has all the three territorial, pecuniary or subject matter jurisdiction then simply the court has the power to deal with any of the cases. If any order passed without jurisdiction, it becomes nullity and not enforceable by law. In this article, we shall discuss jurisdiction of civil courts. consent cannot confer or take away jurisdiction of a court. Sections 15 to 20 of the Code contain detailed provisions relating to jurisdiction of Courts. They regulate forum for the institution of suits. They deal with matters of domestic concern and provide for the multitude of suits which can be brought in different Courts.

In Hirday Nath Roy v. Ram Chandra Barna Sharma, 1920 SCC On Line Cal 85 case, the Calcutta High Court in a full bench judgment explained the term jurisdiction. It stated “… jurisdiction may be defined to be the power of Court to hear and determine a cause, to adjudicate and exercise any judicial power in relation to it; in other words, by jurisdiction is meant the authority which a Court has to decide matters presented in a formal way for its decision.”

In Official Trustee, West Bengal v. Sachindra Nath Chatterjee, AIR 1969 SC 823 case,  Court observed “if a Court has jurisdiction to try a suit and has authority to pass orders of a particular kind, the (act that it has passed an order which it should not have made in the circumstances of the litigation, does not indicate total want or loss of jurisdiction so as to render the order a nullity” (emphasis supplied). From the above discussion it is clear 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 orders sought for. It is not sufficient that it has some jurisdiction in relation to the subject matter of the suit. Its jurisdiction must include the power to hear and decide the questions at issue, the authority to hear and decide the particular controversy that has arisen between the parties.

Extent of Jurisdiction of Civil Court:

A civil court has jurisdiction under Section 9 CPC to try all suits of civil nature unless expressly or impliedly barred. The jurisdiction of civil court under section 9 CPC is very expansive and the statute which excludes such jurisdiction should be strictly interpreted.

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.

Basis of Determination of Jurisdiction of Civil Courts:

As a matter of fact, every suit should be instituted before the court of lowest jurisdiction. In the civil side the Munsiff’s Court is the court of lowest of the jurisdiction. Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 confers jurisdiction over the civil courts to adjudicate upon all suits of civil nature, except such suits the cognizance of which is either expressly or implied barred. In other words, whenever the object of the proceedings is the enforcement of civil rights, a civil court would have jurisdiction to entertain the suit unless the cognizance of the same is barred through a legislative instrument. The jurisdiction of a co9urt should be normally decided on the basis of the case put forward by the plaintiff in his plaint and not by the defendant in his written statement.

Disputes relating to property, breach of contracts, wrongs committed in money transactions, etc. are categorized as civil wrongs and could be subject to a civil process.

From various decisions of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court, the following general principles relating to jurisdiction of a Civil Court emerge:

• A Civil Court has jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature unless their cognizance is barred either expressly or impliedly.
• Consent can neither confer nor take away jurisdiction of a Court.
• A decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity and the validity thereof can be challenged at any stage of the proceedings, in execution proceedings or even in collateral proceedings.
• There is a distinction between want of jurisdiction and irregular exercise thereof.
• Every Court has inherent power to decide the question of its own jurisdiction.
• The jurisdiction of a Court depends upon the averments made in a plaint and not upon the defence in a written statement.
• For deciding the jurisdiction of a Court, the substance of a matter and not its form is important.
• Every presumption should be made in favour of the jurisdiction of a Civil Court.
• A statute ousting the jurisdiction of a Court must be strictly construed.
• Burden of proof of exclusion of the jurisdiction of a Court is on the party who asserts it.
• Even where jurisdiction of a Civil Court is barred, it can still decide whether the provisions of an Act have been complied with or whether an order was passed de hors the provisions of law

In Sahebgouda vs. Ogeppa, (2003) 6 SCC 151 2 case, the Court held that it is also well settled that a provision of law ousting the jurisdiction of a Civil Court must be strictly construed and onus lies on the party seeking to oust the jurisdiction to establish his right to do so. Court further stated that “Under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. It is a well settled principle that a party seeking to oust jurisdiction of an ordinary civil curt shall establish the right to do so. Section 93 of the Act does not impose a total bar on the maintainability of a suit in a civil court. It states that a suit of the nature mentioned therein can be instituted only in conformity with the provisions of the Act; that is to say, a suit or other legal proceeding in respect of matters not covered by the section can be instituted in the ordinary way. It therefore imposes certain statutory restrictions on suits or other legal proceedings relating to matters mentioned therein….”

In A. R. Antulay v. R. S. Naik, AIR 1988 SC 1531 case, the Court said: “This Court, by its directions, could not confer jurisdiction on the High Court of Bombay to try any case for which it did not possess….”. The Court further said: ” 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 to 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.”

In Abdulla Bin Ali v. Galappa, AIR 1985 SC 577 case, the plaintiff filed a suit in the civil court for declaration of title and for possession and mesne profits treating the defendants as trespassers. The defendant contended that the civil court had no jurisdiction since he was a tenant. Denying the contention of the defendants, the Supreme Court observed: “There is no denying the fact that the allegations made in the plaint decide the forum. The jurisdiction does not depend upon the defence taken by the defendants in the written statement. On a reading of the plaint as a whole it is evident that the plaintiffs-appellants had filed the suit giving rise to the present appeal treating the defendants as trespassers as they denied the title of the plaintiffs-appellants. Now a suit against the trespasser would lie only in the civil court and not in the revenue court. … We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that on the allegations made in the plaint the suit was cognizable by the civil court.

When the plaintiff has multiple options to institute the suit he can choose the jurisdiction as per his convenience.

In Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai & Judicial Academy Jharkhand, 2002 (6) SCC 16 case, the Court held that the Plaintiff is dominus litis, that is, master of, or having dominion over, the case. He is the person who has carriage and control of an action. In case of conflict of jurisdiction, the choice ought to lie with the plaintiff to choose the forum best suited to him unless there be a Rule of law excluding access to a forum of plaintiff’s choice or permitting recourse to a forum will be opposed to public policy or will be an abuse of the process of law.

In Sanker Naryan Potti v. K Sreedevi, 1998(3) SCC 751 case, the Apex Court held that it is obvious that in all types of civil disputes Civil Courts have inherent jurisdiction as per Section 9 of the CPC unless a part of that jurisdiction is carved out from such jurisdiction, expressly or by necessary implication, by any statutory provision and conferred on any other tribunal or authority.

In State of A.P. v. Manjeti Laxmi Kantha Rao, AIR 2000 SC 2220 case, the Court held that where a statute gives finality to the orders of the special tribunals, the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts must be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the Civil Courts would normally do in a suit.

In Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, 2010 (8) SCC 726 case, the Court held that there is a presumption that Civil Court has jurisdiction. Ouster of Civil Court’s jurisdiction is not to be readily inferred. A person taking a plea contra must establish the same. Even where the jurisdiction is sought to be barred under a statute, the Civil Court can exercise its jurisdiction in respect of some matters particularly when the statutory authority or the tribunal acts without jurisdiction.

In Dhruv Green Field LTD. v. Hukam Singh, AIR 2002 SC 2841 case, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court observed that-

1. If there is an express provision in any special Act barring the jurisdiction of a Civil Court to deal with matters specified thereunder the jurisdiction of an ordinary Civil Court shall stand excluded.
2. If there is no express provision in the Act but an examination of the provisions contained therein lead to a conclusion with regard to the exclusion of jurisdiction of a Civil Court, the Court would then inquire whether any adequate and efficacious alternative remedy is provided under the Act; if the answer is in the affirmative, it can safely be concluded that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. If, however, no such adequate and effective alternative remedy is provided then exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court cannot be inferred
3. Even in cases where the jurisdiction of a Civil Court is barred expressly or impliedly the Court would nonetheless retain its jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the suit provided the order complained of is a nullity.

Kinds of Jurisdiction of Civil Courts:

The Jurisdiction of civil courts can be divided on the basis of subject matter, pecuniary, and territorial.

Subject Matter:

Subject matter jurisdiction decides whether the particular Court in question has the jurisdiction to deal with the subject matter in question. Section 9 and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, explains the subject matter jurisdiction. The courts cannot try those cases whose subject is beyond their power of jurisdiction.

There are certain statues which provide a specific jurisdiction. This category is, therefore, relating to the subject matter of the suit without its reference to the pecuniary valuation or a territorial jurisdiction of the subject matter. For Example,

• Under the Rent Act, under old section 28 and new section 33 of Rent Act the rent jurisdiction is prescribed which is Civil Judge, Junior Division at Taluka and District Court. 
• In the case of matrimonial disputes, family court are been established. However, the place where family Court is not established then matrimonial disputes are entertained by Civil Judge, Senior Division. 
• In case of the subject matter related to the company laws the case shall be filed before NCLT Tribunal
• In case of the subject matter related to the environment then the case shall be filed before NGT Tribunal. 
• In case of sold defective good under the Consumer Protection Act, the consumer can file a suit in the District Consumer Redressal Forum and not in any other court or tribunal.

In C.T. Nikam v. Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad, AIR 2002 SC 997 case, the Court observed that the appropriate form for resolution of an industrial dispute is the forum constituted under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Jurisdiction of Civil Court is impliedly barred in such cases.

In Union of India v. Sasi S., AIR 1999 Ker 336 case, the Court held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to enforce the right of a subscriber under section 7B of the Telegraph Act. The Court further stated that under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the jurisdiction of Civil Court with regard to a particular matter can be said to be excluded if there is an express provision or by implication it can be inferred that the jurisdiction is taken away.

Pecuniary Jurisdiction:

Section 15 of the civil procedure court provides that every suit shall be instituted in the court of the lowest grade competent to try it. Pecuniary jurisdiction, decides whether the Court can hear a suit of the value of the suit in question. Section 6 of the CPC defines the Pecuniary Jurisdiction. This jurisdiction is based upon the valuation of a subject matter of the suit. The main objective of establishing pecuniary jurisdiction is to prevent the court of a higher level from getting burdened and to provide assistance to the parties. The Bombay High Court has original jurisdiction and small causes court with the jurisdiction up to Rs 50000. So, a suit to obtain Rs 5000 should ideally be dealt with small causes court.

In Karan Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340 case, the plaintiff filed a suit in the subordinate court involving an amount of  Rs 2950, but the court rejected the case. Later his next appeal was allowed by the High Court, but it ordered him to pay the deficit amount. The appellant contested that the decision of the district court will be a nullity, but the High Court dismissed the claim. Later the Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the High Court declaring that the decision of district court won’t be void.

In Nusli Neville Wadia Vs. Ivory Properties, (2020) 6 SCC 557 case, the Court held that jurisdiction generally means an authority of law to entertain, hear and determine a matter. It is the power to decide rightly or wrongly.

Territorial Jurisdiction:

Section 16 to 20 of C.P.C deals with Territorial jurisdiction of a court. Whereas Section 16 to 18 relates to immovable property and Section 19 deals with suit for compensation for wrongs to persons are movable property. Section 20 of C.P.C is residuary provision and cover all cases not falling under Section 16 to 19.

Territorial jurisdiction of a court is decided after taking into account several factors.

• If the suit is with regard to recovery, rent, partition, sale, redemption, determination of right of immovable property it shall be instituted in the court with in the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situated.
• If an immovable property situated within the jurisdiction of different courts, then the suit may be instituted in any court with in the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situated.
• In case of dispute between two or more persons with respect to movable property, business and any other wrong done, the suit may be instituted either at the place where wrong are damaged caused or at the place where defendant (The person who caused the loss) resides.
• In case of a dispute in business, agreement or any other kind of civil dispute, except matrimonial matter, the suit may be instituted either at a place where the defendant resides or carries on business or at a place where the cause of action has arisen, i.e., where the dispute or wrong took place.
• In case of matrimonial dispute, the case may be filed at the place where marriage was solemnized or at the place where opposite party is residing or in the place where husband and wife last resided together or in the place where persons filing the case is residing.

In next few articles, we will discuss pecuniary, subject matter, and territorial jurisdiction in detail.

Conclusion:

Jurisdiction may be defined to be the power of Court to hear and determine a cause, to adjudicate and exercise any judicial power in relation to it; in other words, by jurisdiction is meant the authority which a Court has to decide matters presented in a formal way for its decision. A civil court has jurisdiction u/s. 9 CPC to try all suits of civil nature unless expressly or impliedly barred. The jurisdiction of civil court u/s. 9 CPC is very expansive and the statute which excludes such jurisdiction should be strictly interpreted. As a matter of fact, every suit should be instituted before the court of lowest jurisdiction. In case of conflict of jurisdiction, the choice ought to lie with the plaintiff to choose the forum best suited to him unless there be a Rule of law excluding access to a forum of plaintiff’s choice or permitting recourse to a forum will be opposed to public policy or will be an abuse of the process of law.

The Jurisdiction of civil courts can be divided on the basis of subject matter, pecuniary, and territorial. Subject matter jurisdiction decides whether the particular Court in question has the jurisdiction to deal with the subject matter in question. Pecuniary jurisdiction, decides whether the Court can hear a suit of the value of the suit in question.