The term Plaint has not been defined in the Code. However, it can be defined as a statement of claim by presentation of which the suit is instituted. It is pleading of the plaintiff. Thus, it is a legal document which contains the written statement of the plaintiff’s claim. It is the first step towards the initiation of a suit. Through the help of plaint, the plaintiff narrates or describes the cause of action and related information which is considered as essential from the viewpoint of the suit.  Order VII Rules 10, 10A, and 10B of the Civil Procedure Code, deals with the return of plaint. The CPC empowers the civil courts to return the plaint to the plaintiff if the court believes that the plaint is not properly filed or any suit presented before it has no jurisdiction to try it.

CPC provides that the plaint shall at any stage of the suit be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted. Once the Court has held that it has no pecuniary jurisdiction, it should not have dismissed the suit but is bound to return it for presentation to proper Court. The returned plaint will start afresh when it is presented to the proper court. The freshly filed plaint in the proper court is not the continuation of the plaint presented in the improper court. The order of the court relating to return of the plaint is appealable.

Return is different from rejection and it needs to be noted. Return of plaint does not connote that the plaint had mistaken or that the rules for drafting the plaint were not conformed to. It simply means that the court is not empowered to try the suit for which the plaint is filed. On the contrary, the plaint is rejected if the essential requirements of a plaint are not provided in the plaint or if the certain elements are vague and ambiguous.

Grounds for Return of Plaint:

The court shall return a plaint on the following grounds:

• Court has no jurisdiction, or
• There is a valid objection to jurisdiction

According to Order VII Rule 10 (1), subject to the provisions of Rule 10A, the plaint shall at any stage of the suit be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted. Thus, according to Order VII Rule 10(1) of CPC, a plaint is returned on the sole ground of lack of jurisdiction with the concerned court.

The court can lack jurisdiction on three occasions mentioned below;

• Territorial Jurisdiction
• Pecuniary Jurisdiction
• Subject matter Jurisdiction

For example, a plaint is filed in the city civil court by A against his employer for unlawful retrenchment from a job. Since there are specific labour courts to deal with these cases, the city civil court does not have the jurisdiction to adjudge and hence, plaint can be returned by the court. Under this rule, the court can return the plaint for lack of jurisdiction but the plaintiff has every right to file the plaint again in the appropriate forum.

In Kallu v. Phudan, AIR 1946 All 488 case, the Court held that where a suit filed in a revenue court is not triable by that court, the court should not dismiss the suit, but return the plaint to be presented to, the proper court.

In Hanamanthappa v. Chandrashekhrappa, (1997) 9 SCC 688 case, the Court held that on the return of plaint, the suit should be instituted when plaint is presented in the proper court. It will not be regarded as a continuation of the old suit. It will be treated as a fresh plaint subject to limitation, pecuniary jurisdiction and payment of court-fees.

In Gopi Krishna v. Avil Bose, AIR 1965 Cal 59 case, the Calcutta High Court said that “at any stage of suit” must mean at any stage of the suit before judgment therein is delivered.

In Visweswara v. Nair, (1912) 35 Mad 567 case, If court has no jurisdiction, it should return the plaint even though the claim is undervalued; and when presented to the proper court, the later court is bound to give credit for the fee levied by the former court.

Explanation attached to the rule states that “For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that a Court of appeal or revision may direct, after setting aside the decree passed in a suit, the return of the plaint under this sub-Rule.”

If the Court has jurisdiction over some of the causes of action and thus has jurisdiction over a portion of the plaint there should be no reason why it cannot allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint to lop off those portions beyond its grip and proceed with the portions within its grasp. Where the Court finds that the plaint comprises causes of action within its jurisdiction as well as causes of action outside its jurisdiction, neither the suit can be dismissed as a whole nor the plaint can be returned as a whole.

In Smt. Sheela Adhikari v. Rabindra Nath Adhikari, AIR 1988 Cal. 273 case, the court held that the plaint, if it is to be returned, must be returned either as a whole or not at all and it is not for the Court to make a dissection of the plaint and then to retain a part and to return a part.

In Secretary of State v. Natabar, AIR 1927 Pat 254 case, a suit against two defendants, cognizable by a civil court as against the first and by the revenue court as against the second was filed in a civil court. The Patna High Court, directed that the plaint be returned for presentation to the revenue court, and that a copy of it should be  retained on the record for trial of the suit against the first defendant.

In Latu v. Rani Mahalaxmi Bai, AIR 1942 All 130 case, the Allahabad High Court indicated two alternatives: either to keep original plaint on the record and give a certified copy for presentation to the revenue court, or other proper court or dismiss that part of the suit which is beyond its jurisdiction and proceed to try the rest or strike out the bad part under Order VI Rule 16.

Procedure for Returning the Plaint:

The procedure for returning the plaint depends upon two circumstances. First, where the court in the initial hearings identify that it does not have the jurisdiction to try the case and it feels that the plaint needs to be returned and second, where the defendant has appeared and after which the court believes that plaint needs to be returned for lack of jurisdiction.

Case 1: Where the court in the initial hearings identify that it does not have the jurisdiction to try the case and it feels that the plaint needs to be returned

In this case, the Order VII Rule 10(2) mandates the court to endorse the following particulars on the plaint:

• Date on which the plaint was initially presented by the plaintiff.
• Date on which the plaint is being returned by the court. The returning date is not the one where the court formed the opinion but when the court actually returned the plaint.
• Cause title, i.e., the details of the party which presented the plaint.
• Reasons that compelled the court to return the plaint

In Moneys Transports v. Tanjore, AIR 1979 Mad 196 case, the Court held that the requirement of sub-rule 2 are mandatory and without the endorsement required by the sub-rule, the plaint cannot be returned and cannot be presented to the proper court. This means that the proceedings for the return of the plaint came to an end only when an endorsement was actually made on the plaint. Then only can the plaint be said to be ready for being returned for presentation to the proper Court.

Case2: where the defendant has appeared and after which the court believes that plaint needs to be returned for lack of jurisdiction.

Order VII Rule 10A applies to the situation where the plaint is returned after the defendant(s) has/have appeared before the court. The following list summarises the procedure that needs to be followed while returning the plaint:

1. The court must intimate the plaintiff through registered post or any authorized manner that the plaint is to be returned for lack of jurisdiction.
2. The plaintiff needs to appear before the court either personally or through his counsel
3. The plaintiff is required to inform the court as to where the plaintiff proposes to file the new plaint after it is returned by this court.
4. The court may fix the date of appearance of plaintiff and defendant before the competent court where the new plaint is to be filed.
5. The court may, at the request of the plaintiff, serve notices to the plaintiff and defendant requiring them to appear before the competent Court and intimating them of the return of plaint.
6. This notice shall serve as summon and no new summon will be required to be issued by the court where the returned plaint is filed

In Vicco Laboratories Bombay v. Hindustan Rimmer, AIR 1979 Del 114 case, the Court held that if after the defendant has appeared, the court is of the view that it has no jurisdiction and should, therefore, return the plaint, it must give intimation of such decision to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, thereupon, may make an application described in sub-rule 2. The ‘may’ in sub-rule 2 shows that it is his discretion to make or not make an application. It is not incumbent on him to do so. But if he does make the application and follows the procedure there laid down, the court shall fix the date of appearance by the parties in the court in which the plaint is to be presented and give notice of such date to the parties. Since the defendant by such notice is made awre of the suit against him and the date when he has to appear, the notice is treated as summons. As plaintiff choose the procedure laid down in sub-rule 2 and obtain an orderm, he naturally can have no right to appeal against the order returning the plaint. Application by him under sub-rule 2 is treayed as acceptance of the order of return.

In George Shipping Co. Ltd. v. MV Irene Pa Foreign Flagged Vessel, AIR 1997 Bom 280 case, the Court held that on return of plaint, the procedure laid down in rules 10 and 10A are to be followed. Fresh suit for the same cause of action is not maintainable.

Appeal Against Return of Plaint:

A Plaintiff can file an appeal from the order under Rule 10 of Order 7. Such appeal is maintainable under Order 43 Rule 1 (a). But where the plaint was returned on an application made by the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule10A (2) such appeal is not maintainable.

In Straw Products Ltd. v. Municipal Board Bhopal, AIR 1959 MP 253 case, the Court held that an appeal lies from an order returning a plaint to be presented to the proper court, whether the order is made by the court of first instance (Order 43 Rule 1(a)) or by the court of first appeal in the exercise of powers conferred upon it by Section 107 of CPC. But no second appeal lies from the order of the first Appellant Court (Nilkanth v. Balwant, AIR 1925 Bom 431)

Power of Appellant Court to Transfer Suit to the Proper Court:

According to Order VII Rule 10 B(1), where, on an appeal against an order for the return of plaint, the Court hearing the appeal confirms such order, the Court of appeal may, if the plaintiff by an application so desires, while returning the plaint, direct plaintiff to file the plaint, subject to the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), in the Court in which the suit should have been instituted, (whether such Court is within or without the State in which the Court hearing the appeal is situated), and fit a date for the appearance of the parties in the Court in which the plaint is directed to be filed and when the date is so fixed it shall not be necessary for the Court in which the plaint is filed to serve the defendant with the summons for appearance in the suit, unless that Court in which the plaint is filed, for reasons to be recorded, otherwise directs. According to clause 2, the direction made by the Court under sub-rule (1), shall be without any prejudice to the rights of the parties to question the jurisdiction of the Court, in which the plaint is filed, to try the suit.

This rule has been added to Order VII with a view to empowering the court hearing an appeal against an order of return of plaint to direct that, instead of the plaint being returned, the suit may be transferred to the court in which it should have been instituted. Further, the provisions for abolish the necessary for serving the summons on the defendants, where the order of return of plaint was made after the appearance of the defendants in the suit.

In Latadevi v. Ramnath, AIR 1987 Bom 364 case, the Court held that the provision contained in R. 10B specify a detailed procedure and that too of a mandatory nature.

Conclusion:

As per the above-stated matter, it can be said, that jurisdiction of the court is necessary, to obtain adjudication and the decision of court without jurisdiction is a nullity in the eyes of the law, and not binding of anyone, though this is subject to the exceptions of section 21 of CPC. Return is different from rejection and it needs to be noted. Return of plaint does not connote that the plaint had mistaken or that the rules for drafting the plaint were not conformed to. It simply means that the court is not empowered to try the suit for which the plaint is filed. On the contrary, the plaint is rejected if the essential requirements of a plaint are not provided in the plaint or if the certain elements are vague and ambiguous. on the return of plaint, the suit should be instituted when plaint is presented in the proper court. It will not be regarded as a continuation of the old suit. It will be treated as a fresh plaint subject to limitation, pecuniary jurisdiction and payment of court-fees.

The post Return of Plaint by the Court (Order VII Rules 10, 10A and 10B) appeared first on The Fact Factor.

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.

The post Jurisdiction of Civil Courts appeared first on The Fact Factor.

In this article w shall study the terminology of the code of civil procedure. These are the terms and phrases used in civil proceedings, decree, and judgment.

Abatement of a Suit:

Thus the termination of a suit by operation of the law caused by the death of one of the parties during the pendency of the suit is called the abatement of the suit.

Adjournment of Hearing:

An adjournment of hearing or adjournment of the suit is the postponement of the hearing of the suit to a future date by the Court.

Affidavit:

An affidavit is a declaration of facts, reduced to writing and sworn or affirmed before a person having authority to administer oaths, as for instance, a Magistrate or a Notary Public.

Appeal:

An appeal is a judicial examination of the decision of a lower court by a higher court.

Attachment:

Attachment means restraining or holding some rights over any asset or recoverable amount.

Attachment Before Judgment:

Attachment before judgment is the attachment of property of the defendant when he fails to furnish security to the court, sufficient to satisfy the decree.

Cause of Action:

The cause of action is an act, action, or omission, that gives rise to the institution of a suit.

Caveat:

The caveat is a caution in writing given by an interested party to the court, calling upon the court not to give any relief to another party, without notice or intimation to the party filing the caveat. The person filing a caveat is called a caveator.

Code:

According to Sectio 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, “Code” includes rules.

Commission:

As per the Civil Procedure Code a commission, refers to an authority which is appointed to exercise a power or a direction issued by the Court.

Counter-Claim:

Counter-claim is the cross-claim made by the defendant against the plaintiff and this claim is treated as a plaint filed by the defendant against the plaintiff.

Decree:

According to Sectio 2(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, “decree” means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within, but shall not include

(a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order, or (b) any order of dismissal for default.

Decree Holder or Judgment Creditor:

According to Section 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a “decree-holder” means any person in whose favour a decree has been passed or an order capable of execution has been made.

Defendant:

The litigant against whom the plaintiff has filed suit is called the defendant.

District:

According to Sectio 2(4) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, “district” means the local limits of jurisdiction of a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction(hereinafter called a “District Court”) and includes the local limits of the ordinary civil jurisdiction of a High Court.

Evasive Denials:

When a defendant files a written statement, he must deal with each allegation specifically with each allegation of the plaintiff, that is, he must admit or deny each and every allegation contained in the plaint. If he skips answer to some allegations made by the plaintiff, then it is called evasive denial.

Execution:

The term ‘execution’ refers to the process of enforcing or giving effect to judgment, decree, or order of a court.

Execution of Decree:

Execution of Decree is the enforcement of Decree and Orders of the Court enabling the Decree holder to realize the fruits of decree.

Ex-parte:

An order or a decree is said to be passed ex parte when it is passed after hearing only one side, and not the other.

Ex Parte Decree:

Ex parte decree is a decree passed by a Court on a defendant being absent when the suit is called out for the hearing.

Foreign Court:

According to Section 2(5) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, “foreign Court” means a Court situate outside India and rot established or continued by the authority of the Central Government

Foreign Judgment:

According to Section 2(6) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, ” foreign judgment ” means the judgment of a foreign Court.

Garnishee:

Garnishee is a person who is a debtor of the judgment debtor.

Garnishee Order:

A garnishee order is an order by which a court can call upon the garnishee not to pay the amount due to the judgment debtor from the garnishee but instead to pay the judgment creditor.

Government Pleader:

According to Section 2(6) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, “Government Pleader” includes any officer appointed by the State Government to perform all or any of the functions expressly imposed by this Code on the Government Pleader and also any pleader acting under the directions of the Government Pleader

Indigent Person or Pauper:

An indigent person is one who does not have sufficient means to pay the court fees in respect of the plaint being filed by him.

Injunction:

An injunction is an order of a court calling upon a party to do or to refrain from doing a particular act.

Interpleader suit:

An interpleader suit is one where the real dispute is between the defendants only, and therefore, the defendants “interplead”, that is, they plead against each other, instead of pleading against the plaintiff as in an ordinary suit.

Issues:

The term “issue” means a point of the question in the legal proceedings or issues are material propositions of facts affirmed by one party and denied by the other.

Judge:

According to Section 2(8) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, “Judge” means the presiding officer of a Civil Court.

Judgment:

According to Section 2(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, “judgment ” means the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order

Judgment Debtor:

According to Section 2(10) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a “judgment-debtor” means any person against whom a decree has been passed or an order capable of execution has been made;

Jurisdiction:

Jurisdiction, in law, is the authority of a court to entertain, hear and determine cases (suits or other proceedings). This authority is based on the Constitution.

Jurisdictional Fact:

The existence of a fact which gives authority to a court to try and dispose of a particular legal proceeding is called jurisdictional fact.

Legal Representative:

According to Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, ” legal representative ” means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued

Letter of Request or Rogatory Letter:

A letter of request is a letter issued by a court in one country to a court in a foreign country requesting some judicial assistance from the judiciary of that country.

Litigant:

A litigant is a party to a lawsuit. It is a person engaged in a suit or petition before the Court.

Litigation:

Litigation is a judicial proceeding undertaken in court to determine the rights, duties and obligations of parties in dispute.

Mesne Profits:

According to Section 2(12) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, ” mesne profits ” of property means those profits which the person in wrongful possession of such property actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received there from, together with interest on such profits, but shall not include profits due to improvements made by the person in wrongful possession.

Next Friend of Minor or Guardian ad litem:

The next friend of the minor is that person who files a suit on behalf of a minor.

Order:

According to Section 2(14) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, ” order ” means the formal expression of any decision of a Civil Court which is not a decree.

Petitioner:

In the case where a petition is filed for example say writ petition, then the person filing it is called the petitioner.

Plaint:

A plaint is a statement of claim. It is the document by which a suit is instituted in a court. It contains the grounds on which the assistance of the Court is sought by the plaintiff. It forms part of pleadings before the Court.

Plaintiff:

The litigant who approaches a court of law by filing a suit or other legal proceedings is called the plaintiff.

Pleader:

According to Section 2(15) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, “pleader” means any person entitled to appear and plead for another in Court, and includes an advocate, a vakil and an attorney of a High Court.

Pleadings:

The term “Pleadings” as used in the Code refers to the plaint or written statement. They are to be signed and verified as provided in the Code.

Preliminary Decree:

A preliminary decree is that decree given by the court when further proceedings are required before a suit can be completely disposed of.

Precept:

A precept is an order or direction given by the court which passes a decree to any other court competent to execute the decree.

Public Officer:

According to Section 2(17) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,

” public officer ” means a person falling under any of the following descriptions, namely:-

(a) every Judge;

(b) every member of the Indian Civil Service;

(c) every commissioned or gazetted officer in the military naval or air forces of the Union while serving under the Government;

(d) every officer of a Court of Justice whose duty it is, as such officer, to investigate or report on any matter of law or fact, or to make, authenticate or keep any document, or to take charge or dispose of any property, or to execute any judicial process, or to administer any oath, or to interpret, or to preserve order, in the Court, and every person especially authorized by a Court of Justice to perform any of such duties;

(e) every person who holds any office by virtue of which he is empowered to place or keep any person in confinement;

(f) every officer of the Government whose duty it is, as such officer, to prevent offences, to give information of offences, to bring offenders to justice, or to protect the public health, safety or convenience;

(g) every officer whose duty it is, as such officer, to take, receive, keep or expend any property on behalf of the Government, or to make any survey, assessment or contract on behalf of the Government, or to execute any revenue-process, or to investigate, or to report on, any matter affecting the pecuniary interests of the Government or to make, authenticate or keep any document relating to the pecuniary interests of the Government, or to prevent the infraction of any law for the protection of the pecuniary interests of the Government; and

(h) every officer in the service or pay of the Government, or remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty:

Reference:

When the subordinate court in order to take assistance refers the case to the High Court, it is called the reference. The opinion of the High Court can also be sought when the subordinate court has some doubts about the question of law. Reference is always made to the High Court.

Respondent:

The party against whom a petition is filed is called the respondent.

Restitution:

The literal meaning of restitution is an act of restoring a thing to its proper owner.

Review:

“review” is the process of judicial re-examination of a case by the same court and by the same judge who has passed the judgment or order earlier.

Revision:

A revision is said to take place when the High Court calls for the record of any case decided by a subordinate court and passes an appropriate order if the subordinate court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or material irregularity.

Rules:

According to Sectio 2(18) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, “rules” means rules and forms contained in the First Schedule or made under section 122 or section 125.

Set-off:

Set-off is a defence available to the defendant in his written statement, by which he seeks to wipe out or reduce the claim of the plaintiff against him.

Share in Corporation:

According to Sectio 2(19) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, “share in a corporation” shall be deemed to include stock, debenture stock, debenture bonds.

Summary Suit or Summary Procedure:

A summary suit is a suit where the defendant cannot defend the suit as a matter of right and requires the leave of the court to do so. It is to prevent unreasonable obstruction by the defendant who has no defence.

Summons:

A summons is a document issued by an officer of a court, calling upon the person to whom it is directed to appear before the court or an officer of the court for a particular purpose on a stated date at a stated time.

Written Statement:

A written statement is the reply or defence of the defendant in answer to the plaint or the plaintiff. It constitutes the pleading filed by the defendant.

Indian Legal System > Civil Laws > The Code of Civil Procedure > Terminology of CPC

The post The Terminology of the Code of Civil Procedure appeared first on The Fact Factor.

Three Tier System of District courts:

• The highest court in each district is that of the District and Sessions Judge. They administer justice in India at a district level. They are presided over by a judge appointed by the State Government.
• There are additional district judges and assistant district judges who are there to share the additional load of the proceedings of District Courts. ADJ is the Additional District Judge and the court presided have similar and equal jurisdiction as the District Judge and his district court.
• This is the principal court of civil jurisdiction. This is also a court of Sessions. Sessions-triable cases are tried by the Sessions Court. It has the power to impose any sentence including capital punishment. Since District court is at a higher hierarchical level, a law declared by the district court is applicable to all subordinate courts.
• It looks after the Civil and criminal matters of the district.

Appointments of Judges:

• The judges of subordinate courts are appointed by the Governor in consultation with the chief justice of the High Court of the concerned State.

Qualification Required:

• He should be a citizen of India
• The person should not already in the service of the Union or of the state
• A minimum of seven years of practise as a lawyer at the bar is a necessary qualification for direct entry level to become a District Judge upon a written examination and oral interview by a committee of High court judges, the appointment of district judges is notified by the State Government.

Removal of Judge:

• He may be removed from his office by the state Govt. in consultation with the High court of the concerned state.

Jurisdiction:

• The district court or additional district court exercises jurisdiction both on original side and appellate side in civil and criminal matters arising in the district.
• The territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction in civil matters is usually set in concerned state enactments on the subject of civil courts.
• On the criminal side, jurisdiction is exclusively derived from the criminal procedure code. As per this code, the maximum sentence a sessions judge of a district court may award to a convict is capital punishment. Thus The maximum sentence a Sessions Judge of the district court may award to a convict is capital punishment.
• The district court has appellate jurisdiction over all subordinate courts situated in the district on both civil and criminal matters.
• Certain matters on the criminal side or civil side cannot be tried by a lesser court than a district court. This gives the district court original jurisdiction in such matters.

Power of District Judge:

• The District Judge manages the state funds allocated for the development of judiciary in the concerned district of which he/she is a judge.
• He is the highest judge at the district level.

Metropolitan Court:

• An area is designated a metropolitan area by the concerned State Government if the population of the area exceeds one million or more.
• The district judge is known as a Metropolitan session judge while presiding over a district court in a city which is designated Metropolitan area by the State Government.

Subordinate Courts Below District Court:

Civil Side:

• There is a three-tier system of courts.
• At the lowest level is the court of Junior Civil Judge. Junior Civil Judge decides civil cases of the small pecuniary stake.
• At the middle of the hierarchy, there is the Court of Senior Civil Judge. Senior Civil Judge can decide civil cases of any valuation.
• At the level above the court of Junior Civil Judge, there is the court of Principal Junior Civil Judge.,
• There are many additional courts of Additional Civil Judge (senior division). The Jurisdiction of these addition courts is the same as that of the principal court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division). At the top level, there may be one or more courts of the additional district judge with the same judicial power as that of the District judge.

Criminal:

• There is a three-tier system of courts.
• At the lowest level is the court of the Second Class Judicial Magistrate. The Second Class Judicial Magistrates decide criminal cases which are punishable with imprisonment of up to five years.
• At the middle of the hierarchy, there is the First Class Chief Judicial Magistrate court who can try cases which are punishable with imprisonment for a term up to seven years.
• At the top level, there may be one or more courts of additional sessions judge with the same judicial power as that of the Sessions judge. This court is known as the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. Usually, there are many additional courts of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrates.
• At the top level of this system, family courts are founded to deal with the issues related to disputes of matrimonial issues only. The status of Principal Judge of the family court is at par with the District Judge.

Subordinate Courts Below Metropolitan Court:

Civil Side:

• There is a three-tier system of courts.
• At the lowest level is the court of small causes. Junior Civil Judge decides civil cases of the small pecuniary stake.
• At the middle of the hierarchy, there is the Court of Senior Civil Judge. Senior Civil Judge can decide civil cases of any valuation.
• At the level above the court of Junior Civil Judge, there is the court of Principal Junior Civil Judge.,
• There are many additional courts of Additional Civil Judge (senior division). The Jurisdiction of these addition courts is the same as that of the principal court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division). At the top level, there may be one or more courts of the additional district judge with the same judicial power as that of the District judge.

Criminal:

• There is a three-tier system of courts.
• At the lowest level is the court of the Second Class Judicial Magistrate. The Second Class Judicial Magistrates decide criminal cases which are punishable with imprisonment of up to five years.
• At the middle of the hierarchy, there is the First Class Chief Judicial Magistrate court who can try cases which are punishable with imprisonment for a term up to seven years.
• At the top level, there may be one or more courts of additional sessions judge with the same judicial power as that of the Sessions judge. This court is known as the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. Usually, there are many additional courts of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrates.
• At the top level of this system, family courts are founded to deal with the issues related to disputes of matrimonial issues only. The status of Principal Judge of the family court is at par with the District Judge.

Village Courts:

• The village courts are named as Lok Adalat or Nyaya Panchayat which means the service of justice extended to the villagers of India. This is the system for resolving disputes at the micro level. The Law Commission had recommended in 1984 to form the Nyaya Panchayats in the rural areas with the people of educational attainment.  The latest development had been observed in 2008 through the initiation of Gram Nyaylayas Act which had sponsored the concept of installation of 5000 mobile courts throughout the country. These courts are assigned to judge the petty cases related to the civil and criminal offence which can generate the penalty of up to 2 years imprisonment.

The post District & Session Courts appeared first on The Fact Factor.