General Principles of Institution of Suits

Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on

emailShare on printMore Sharing Services
Courts are there to settle the disputes between individual persons and to declare and establish their
rights regarding the matters in dispute. So whenever persons fail to solve a dispute among them,
they can approach the Court by filing a suit. It is called institution of suit.

There are various categories of Courts. All categories can be classified under Courts of First instance
and appellate Courts. As per Section 15 of Civil Procedure Code every suit shall be instituted in the
Court of the lowest grade competent to try it. Every Court has specific pecuniary and territorial
jurisdiction. So we cannot file suits as per our convenience. Rules regarding filing of suits are guided
by various provisions of Civil Procedure Code. Now let us have a look at those provisions.


1. Where to file the case:
Before filing a suit one should know where or before which Court the suit has to be filed. It is called
place of suing. Place of suing is subjected to two limitations:
(1) territorial jurisdiction of the Court; and
(2) pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, Territorial jurisdiction depends upon the nature of the suit, i.e.
subject matter of the dispute. Depending upon the nature of subject matter, suits are divided into 3
categories. They are-
# Suits relating to immovable property.
# Suits relating to compensation for wrongs to person and movables.
# Other suits.

2. In case of Suits relating to immovable property:- As a general rule suits relating to immovable
property shall be filed in the Court within the local limits of whose territorial jurisdiction the property
is situate, In other words, where the property in dispute is situated.

Section 16 of the Civil Procedure Code is as follows:
"Suits to be instituted where subject matter situate: Subject to the pecuniary and other limitations
prescribed by any law, suits-
(a) for the recovery of immovable property with or without rent or profits.
(b) for the partition of immovable property.
( c) for the foreclosure, sale or redemption in the case of a mortgage of or charge upon immovable
property.
(d) for the determination of any other right to or interest in immovable property.
(e) for compensation for wrong to immovable property.
(f) for the recovery of immovable property actually under distraint or attachment,

shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate:
Provided that a suit to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immovable property
held by or on behalf of the defendant may, where the relief sought can be entirely obtained through
his personal obedience, be instituted either in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction
the property is situate, or in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant
actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain."

Here it should be noted that the pecuniary jurisdiction of Courts differ from State to State.

There is yet another limitation regarding the filing of suits on immovable property. It is clear from the
proviso to Section 16. The proviso relates to the suits for compensation in relation to immovable
property held by or on behalf of defendant and where the relief sought can be entirely obtained
through his personal obedience. That means, the relief for compensation is independent of its own
and has nothing to do with other relief's regarding immovable property referred to in clauses (a) to
(d) of Section 16.

3. Property at distant places:- 1, 2, 3, 4 are brothers. They are living at different places like A and B.
They are having their immovable ancestral properties at A, B and C. 1 prefers to file a suit for partition
against 2, 3 and 4. He can file the suit at A, B or C i.e where a portion of the property is situate. But in
such cases, the entire suit claim has to be taken into consideration for purpose of payment of court
fee and pecuniary jurisdiction. In the above example, no doubt the suit for partition can be filed at A
provided the total value of property situated at A, B and C is less than rupees one lakh. This is so
because only Junior Civil Judge Court is located at A. If the total value of the entire property is more
than rupees one lakh the suit cannot be filed at A. The suit can be filed at B,, or at C where Senior Civil
Judge are located. It is clear from the wording of Section 17 of Civil Procedure Code which runs as
follows :

Suits for immovable property situate within jurisdiction of different courts:- Where a suit is to
obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immovable property situate within the
jurisdiction of different courts, the suit may be instituted in any court within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction any portion of the property is situate:

Provided that, in respect of the value of the subject-matter of the suit, the entire claim is cognizable
by such court. '

4. Suits for compensation for wrongs to persons or movables:-- As far as suits relating to immovable
properties and the relief is by way of compensation, suit can be filed at two places
(1) where the defendant resides or

(2) where the wrong was done to the movables. The same will apply to the suits for compensation
for wrongs to persons. Section 19 of Civil Procedure Code reads as under:

Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables: Where a suit is for compensation for
wrong done to the person or to movable property, if the wrong was done within the local limits of
the jurisdiction of one court and the defendant resides, or carries on business or personally works for
gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of another court, the suit may be institute at the option
of the plaintiff in either of the said courts.

To put it differently, this section corresponds to suits for damages or compensation in relation to
persons or movable property. Suits involving tortuous liability are covered by this section. We are
aware that Tort is a civil wrong for which the relief lies by way of claiming unliquidated damages.
Nuisance, negligence, defamation, accident, trespass etc. come under tortious liability. In such cases
the two options where to file the suit are where the defendant resides or carries on business or work
for gain or where the tortious act takes place. It is for the plaintiff to choose either of those places.
Of course, this section is also subjected to pecuniary jurisdiction.

5. Filing of suits in other cases:- As far as other suits not covered under Sections 16, 17 and 19 of Civil
Procedure Code, the suits have to be filed where the defendant resides or cause of action wholly or
in part arises. Money suits are the best example to understand the position easily. 'A' borrowed Rs.
20,000/- from 'B'. 'A' resides at Guntur and 'B' resides at Mangalagiri. Pronote was executed at
Mangalagiri. 'B' can file a suit against 'A' for recovery of amount either at Mangalagiri or at Guntur.
Ifthe amount borrowed is above rupees one lakh, the suit should be filed only at sub-court, Guntur..
There is one more thing to be kept in mind which is very important. The word 'where defendant
resides' means, where he actually resides at the time of filing of the suit. For example, 'A' and 'B' are
residents of Guntur. 'A' borrowed some amount from 'B' at Guntur. Subsequently, 'A' shifted his
family to Nellore. 'B' shifted his family to Hyderabad. 'B' can institute a suit against 'A' at Guntur or at
Nellore. Section 20 of Civil Procedure Code is as under:

Other suits to be instituted where the defendant resides or cause of action arises:- 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 works for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

Explanation:- A Corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in
India or in respect of any cause 0 action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at
such place.

A reading of Clause (a) and (b) requires some careful examination.

Where there is only one defei1dant, there is no problem. But where there are more defendants than
one, where to file the suit? In such a case, different suits have to be filed where each of the
defendant resides. Such a thing is not advisable because it is a very costly affair that leads to
conflicting judgments. The only alternative is to file a suit where cause of action for the suit arises.
This is the best suitable method. Even if there are ten defendants and are residing at 10 different
places, a single suit can be filed against all of them where the cause of action arises.

But in some cases, the place where cause of action arises may be far away from where the plaintiff
resides. One of the defendants may be residing very close to the plaintiff. In such a case, what is the
option for the plaintiff? Clause (b) of Section 20 gives the answer. In such a case, the plaintiff can file
a single suit where anyone of the defendants resides. But either the other defendants should not
oppose the same or the court must give pem1ission to the plaintiff for so instituting the suit.

Finally a few words about cause of action. Cause of action is not an isolated one, nor a single
instance. A number of circumstances and instances constitute cause of action. That means cause of
action may arise at more than one place. That is to say arise wholly or in part. It is clear from Clause
(c) of Section 20, that suits covered under Section 20 can be filed where cause of action arises wholly
or in part. Promissory note transferred for valid consideration is best example.

So far we have discussed in detail various aspects regarding place of suing.

The whole discussion may be summarized as under:
1) Regarding suits relating to immovable property, place of cause of action is immaterial. Place of
residence of defendants and plaintiff is immaterial. Where the property is situate, there the suit
should be filed. This is the most fundamental principle.

2) Where the immovable property is situated at different places and within the territorial jurisdiction
of different Courts, there also place of cause of action is immaterial. Place of residence of plaintiff or
defendant is also immaterial. Suit can be filed where any portion of the immovable property situates.

3) As far as suits regarding compensation for wrong to immovable property held by defendant, the
place of residence of plaintiff is immaterial. Suits can be filed where the defendant resides, or wrong
was done in relation to immovable property.

4) In case of suits involving tortious liability claiming compensation for wrongs to person or
movables, the place of residence of plaintiff is immaterial. The suit can be filed where the defendant
resides or where the wrong was done to the person or movable property (cause of action).

5) Regarding other suits, the place of residence of plaintiff is immaterial. Suits can be filed where the
defendant resides or cause of action arose wholly or in part. Where there are more than one
defendant, and are residing at different places, different suits have to be filed at different places
where defendants reside. As it is very costly and not convenient, suit can be filed where anyone of
the defendants resides, with the leave of the court or if the other defendants do not object.

6) All the above suits are subjected to pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court.
If we carefully observe, in all cases, the place of residence or where the plaintiff is residing is
immaterial. No suit can be filed exclusively on the basis of place of residence of plaintiff. The reason
is obvious. Plaintiff is the person who files the suit and drags the defendant to court. If he is allowed
to file the suit as he pleases, he may take advantage of it and may harass the defendant by simply
filing suits within the local jurisdiction of court where he resides.

By now it is clear where to institute a suit. Next question is who are the parties to the suit. In other
Words, who can file a suit and against whom.
Q. "Every suit shall be instituted in court of lowest grade competent to try it", Explain. Explain the
provisions of CPC which are applied in determining the forum for institution of a suite relating to
immovable property. State principles which guide a plaintiff in determining the place of filing a
suit.Explain.

In India, courts are hierarchically established. The lower courts have less powers than the higher
or superior courts. The Supreme Court of India is at the top of the hierarchy. There are numerous
lower courts but only one High Court per State and only one Supreme Court in the Country. Thus, it is
immpractical to move superior courts for each and every trivial matter. Further, the subject matter of
a suit can also be of several kinds. It may be related to either movable or immovable property, or it
may be about marriage, or employment. Thus, speciality Courts are set up to deal with the specific
nature of the suit to deal with it efficiently. Similarly, it would be inconvenient for the parties to
approach a court that is too far or is in another state. All these factors are considered to determine
the court in which a particular suit can be filed. CPC lays down the rules that determine whether a
court has jurisdiction to hear a particular matter or not.

These rules can be categorized as follows - Pecuniary Jurisdiction, Territorial Jurisdiction, Subject
matter jurisdiction, and Original Jurisdiction.

Pecuniary Jurisdiction
As per Section 15, every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it.
This is a fundamental rule which means that if a remedy is available at a lower court, the higher court
must not be approached. Morespecifically, this rule refers to the monetory value of the sute. Each
court is deemed competent to hear matters having a monetory value of only certain extent. A matter
that involves a monetory value higher than what a court is competent to hear, the parties must
approach a higher court. At the same time, the parties must approach the lowest grade court which
is competent to hear the suit.

However, this rule is a rule of procedure, which is meant to avoid overburdoning of higher courts. It
does not take away the jurisdiction of higher courts to hear matter of lesser monetory value. Thus, a
decree passed by a court, which is not the lowest grade court compenent to try the matter, is not a
nullity. A higher court is always competent to try a matter for which a lower court is compenent. This
rule applies to the parties as it bars the parties to approach a higher court when a lower court is
competent to hear the matter.

Example

Valuation

Territorial Jurisdiction
Territorial Jurisdiction means the territory within a Court has jurisdiction. For example, if a person A
is cheated in Indore, then it makes sense to try the matter in Indore instead of Chennai. The object of
this jurisdiction to organize the cases to provide convenient access to justice to the parties. To
determine whether a court has territorial jurisdiction, a matter may be categorized into four types -

1. Suits in respect of immovable property

Section 16 - Suits to be instituted where subject-matter is situated Subject to the pecuniary or
other limitations prescribed by any law, suits
(a) for the recovery of immovable property with or without rent or profits,
(b) for the partition of immovable property,
(c) for foreclosure, sale or redemption in the case of a mortgage of or charge upon immovable
property,
(d) for the determination of any other right to or interest in immovable property,
(e) for compensation for wrong to immovable property,
(f) for the recovery of movable property actually under distraint or attachment,
shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situated:
Provided that a suit to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immovable property
held by or on behalf of the defendant, may where the relief sought can be entirely obtained through
his personal obedience be instituted either in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction
the property is situate, or in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant
actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain.
Explanation. In this section "property" means property situated in India.

Section 17 - Suits for immovable property situated within jurisdiction of different Courts Where a
suit is to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immovable property situate within
the jurisdiction of different Court, the suit my be instituted in any Court within the local limits of
whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situated : Provided that, in respect of the value of
the subject matter of the suit, the entire claim is cognizable by such Court.

Section 18 - Place of institution of suit where local limits of jurisdiction of Courts are uncertain
(1) Where it is alleged to be uncertain within the local limits of the jurisdiction of which of two or
more Courts any immovable property is situate, any one of those Courts may, if satisfied that there is
ground for the alleged uncertainty, record a statement to that effect and thereupon proceed to
entertain and dispose of any suit relating to that property, and its decree in the suit shall have the
same effect as if the property were situate within the local limits of its jurisdiction :
Provided that the suit is one with respect to which the Court is competent as regards the nature and
value of the suit to exercise jurisdiction.
(2) Where a statement has not been recorded under sub-section (1), and objection is taken before an
Appellate or Revisional Court that a decree or order in a suit relating to such property was made by a
Court not having jurisdiction where the property is situate, the Appellate or Revisional Court shall not
allow the objection unless in its opinion there was, at the time of the institution of the suit, no
reasonable ground for uncertainty as to the Court having jurisdiction with respect thereto and there
has been a consequent failure of justice.


2. Suits in respect of immovable property - It is said that the movables move with the person. Thus,
a suit for a movable person lies in the court, the territory of which the defendant resides.

Section 19 - Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movable Where a suit is for
compensation for wrong done to the person or to movable property, if the wrong was done within
the local limits of the jurisdiction of one Court and the defendant resides, or carries on business, or
personally works for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of another Court, the suit may be
instituted at the option of the plaintiff in either of the said Courts.
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 of B. B may sue A either in
Calcutta or in Delhi.

3. Suits for compensation for wrong (tort) - Section 19 applies to this as well.

4. Other suits

Section 20 - Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises Subject
to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in 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.

ExplanationA 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.
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 Indian 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 Simla, B at Calcutta and C at Delhi A, B and C being together at Benaras, B and C make
a joint promissory note payable on demand, and deliver it to A. A may sue B and C at Benaras, 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.

Objection as to Jurisdiction

Section 21 - Objections to jurisdiction (1) 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 or settled at or before such settlement,
and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.
(2) No objection as to the competence of a Court with reference to the pecuniary limits of its
jurisdiction 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.
(3) No objection as to the competence of the executing Court with reference to the local limits of its
jurisdiction shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in
the executing Court at the earliest possible opportunity, and unless there has been a consequent
failure of justice.

As held in Pathumma vs Kutty 1981, no objection as to the place of suing will be allowed by an
appellate or revisional court unless the following three conditions are satisfied -
(i) The objection was taken in first instance. (ii) The objection was taken at the earliest possible
opportunity and in cases where issues are settled at or before settlement of issues (iii) there has
been a consequent failure of justice.

All the three conditions must be satisfied simultaneously.

Civil Court and Code of Civil Procedure
The term Civil Court has not been defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or in any other law in force in the
country. In Ganguli Engineering Limited v. Smt. Sushila Dasi [1] the Calcutta High Court held that Any Tribunal or
functionary exercising 'judicial functions and, adjudicating disputes not 'relating to crimes should be taken to be a civil
court. The expression civil court includes all courts of civil judicature whose procedure is in essence governed by
the Civil Procedure Code [generally] [2] .
Civil Courts try suits of civil nature. In Section 9 of the CPC, the word civil nature is wider than the word civil
proceeding. The section would be available in every case where the dispute has the characteristic of affecting ones
rights which are not only civil but of civil nature. [3] The expression civil proceeding used under Article 133(1) of the
Constitution of India is wide enough to cover any proceeding of a civil nature decided by the High Court, whether in
its original appellate or revisional jurisdiction. [4] A proceeding under Article 226 for a writ to bring up a proceeding for
consideration must be a civil proceeding, if the original proceeding concerned civil rights. [5]
A civil proceeding would also be one where a person seeks to enforce by appropriate relief the alleged infringement
of his civil rights against another person or the State, and if the claim is proved would result in the declaration express
or implied of the right claimed and relief such as payment of debt, damages, compensation, delivery of specific
property, enforcement of personal rights, determination of status, etc. [6] A civil suit would be an action bought to
enforce, redress, or protect a private or civil right. Simply stated it is a non-criminal litigation [7] where in a criminal
proceeding may conclude in the imposition of sentences such as death, imprisonment, fine or forfeiture of property,
etc. [8]
JURISDICTION
The term jurisdiction is not defined in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The word is derived from the Latin terms juris
and dicto which means I speak by the law. It is interesting to note that the jurisdiction is always granted by the
Legislature but the power to determine the jurisdiction vests in the superior Courts. Two meanings of jurisdiction can
be analyzed: (i) The authority or power of a court to entertain and decide on any judicial proceeding, (ii) The area
over which the power of a court extends.
By jurisdiction is meant authority by which a Court has to decide matters that are litigated before it, or to take
cognizance of matters presented in a formal way for its decisions. The limits of this authority are imposed by Statute
or Charters or Commissions under which the Court is instituted and may be extended or restricted by similar means.
If no restriction or limitation is imposed, the jurisdiction is said to be unlimited. A limitation may be either as to the kind
or nature of the actions or the matters of which a particular Court has cognizance or as to the area over which the
jurisdiction extends, or it may partake of both these characteristics. [9]
Sometimes jurisdiction is also defined in terms of power. It is the power of the court to hear and determine a cause,
to adjudicate and to exercise judicial power in relation to it and to award the remedies provided by law upon a state of
facts proved or admitted and presented to the court in a formal way for its decision. The concept of jurisdiction thus
embraces the power to grant the remedies provided by law. [10]
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 come within
jurisdiction in relation to the subject matter of the suit. Its jurisdiction must include the power to hear and decide the
questions at issue, authority to hear and decide the particular controversy that has arisen between the parties. [11]
The word jurisdiction is an expression which is used in a variety of sense and takes its colour from its context.
Whereas the pure theory of jurisdiction would reduce jurisdictional control to a vanishing point, the adoption of a
narrower meaning might result in a more useful legal concept even though the formal structure of law may lose
something of its logical symmetry. At bottom the problem of defining the concept of jurisdiction for the purpose of
juridical review has been one of public policy rather than one of logic. [12]
Jurisdiction in its classical concept means the power to hear and determine a dispute, to adjudicate and exercise any
judicial power in relation to it; in other words jurisdiction means the authority by which the Court decides a case that is
litigated before it or to take cognizance of a matter presented in a formal way for its decision. [13]
Therefore, numerous attempts have been made to define what jurisdiction really means and all the views converge
to the central meaning that it is the power to hear and determine the entitlement to enter upon an enquiry into the
question. Regarding this, Lord Denman in R v. Bolton [14] said that the question of jurisdiction is determinable at the
commencement, not at the conclusion of an enquiry. Accordingly the tradition school of jurists consistently impressed
upon the need of bearing in mind the distinction between existence of jurisdiction and exercise of jurisdiction.
This traditional school always presses that the authority to decide a cause at all and not the decision rendered is what
makes up jurisdiction. [15] The decision of a Court whether right or wrong has nothing to do with jurisdiction which is
to be decided at the initial stage and to be ensured that the Court has jurisdiction to decide the matter all throughout
the case. [16]
Since conferring jurisdiction is a legislative function, in the leading case of A.R.Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, the Supreme
Court stated that, 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. [17] . Therefore, it is well known that consent cannot confer nor take away
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 because it is against public policy by the
principle Ex dolo malo non oritur action. But 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 court to the exclusion of the rest is valid,
binding and enforceable. [18]
Also it is well-settled that for deciding the jurisdiction of a civil court, the averments made in the plaint are material. To
put it differently, the jurisdiction of a civil court should normally be decided on the basis of the case out forward by the
plaintiff in his plaint and not by the defendant in his written statement. [19]
The jurisdiction of a court, tribunal or authority may depend upon the fulfilment of certain conditions or upon existence
of a particular fact. This is called jurisdictional fact. The existence of such a preliminary or collateral fact is a condition
precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the authority. If it exists, the authority has jurisdiction and it can act. If
the authority wrongly assumes existence of such fact, a writ of certiorari can be issued. [20]
Whether a court has jurisdiction or not has to be decided with reference to the initial assumption of jurisdiction by that
court. The question depends on the truth or falsehood of the facts into which it has to enquire, or upon the
correctness of its findings on these facts, but upon their nature, and it is determinable at the commencement and not
at the conclusion of the enquiry. [21] Therefore, whenever the jurisdiction of a court is challenged, that court has the
inherent jurisdiction to decide the said question. [22]
TYPES OF JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction of a Court may be classified under the following categories [23] :
Civil and Criminal Jurisdiction: Civil jurisdiction is that which concerns and deals with disputes of civil nature.
Criminal Jurisdiction on the other hand relates to crimes and punishments of offenders, etc.
Territorial or Local Jurisdiction: Every court has its own local or territorial limits beyond which it cannot exercise its
jurisdiction. These limits are fixed by the Government. For example, a learned District Judge has to exercise
jurisdiction within his district. Again, a court has no jurisdiction to try a suit for immoveable property situated beyond
its local limits.
Pecuniary jurisdiction: The Civil Procedure Code, 1908 provides that a court will have jurisdiction only over those
suits the amount or value of the subject-matter of which does not exceed the pecuniary limits of its
jurisdiction. [24] Some courts have unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction, e.g., High Courts and District Courts have no
pecuniary limitations. But for example,in West Bengal Courts of civil judge junior division have limited pecuniary
jurisdiction but courts of civil judge senior division have unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction. [25]
Jurisdiction as to subject-matter: Different courts have been empowered to decide different types of suits. Certain
courts are precluded from entertaining certain suits. For example, a Presidency Small Causes Court has no
jurisdiction to try suits for partition of immoveable property, while only the District Judge or Civil Judge (Senior
Division) can hear suits in respect of testamentary matters. [26]
Original and appellate jurisdiction: Original jurisdiction is inherent in or conferred upon, a court of first instance. In the
exercise of that jurisdiction, a court of first instance decides suits, petitions or applications. Appellate jurisdiction is the
power or authority conferred upon a superior court to re-hear by way of appeal, revision, etc., of causes which have
been tried by courts of original jurisdiction.
Munsiff Courts, Courts of Civil Judges, Small Cause Courts have original jurisdiction only while District Courts, High
Courts and the Supreme Court have original as well as appellate jurisdiction.
Exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction: Exclusive jurisdiction is that which confers sole power on one court or tribunal
to try 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 is jurisdiction which 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 litigant to invoke
jurisdiction of any such court or authority. [27]
General and special jurisdiction: General jurisdiction extends to all cases comprised within a class or classes of
causes. While special or limited jurisdiction is jurisdiction which is confined to special, particular or limited causes.
Legal and equitable jurisdiction: Legal jurisdiction is a jurisdiction exercised by Common Law Courts in England, while
equitable jurisdiction is jurisdiction exercised by Equity Courts. Courts in India are courts of both, law and equity.
Municipal or foreign jurisdiction: Municipal or domestic jurisdiction is a jurisdiction exercised by municipal courts i.e.,
courts in a country. Foreign jurisdiction means jurisdiction exercised by a court in a foreign country. A judgment
rendered or decision given by a foreign court is a foreign judgment.
Expounding and Expanding jurisdiction: Expounding jurisdiction means to define, clarify and explain jurisdiction.
Expanding jurisdiction means to expand, enlarge or extend the jurisdiction. It is the duty of the court to expound its
jurisdiction. It is, however, not proper for the court to expand its jurisdiction. [28]
Jurisdiction relating to place of suing:
According to section 15 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, every suit shall be instituted in the court of lowest grade
competent to try it. The rule laid down in this section is a rule of procedure and does not affect the jurisdiction of the
court. Hence a decree passed by a court of a higher grade cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. [29] It is merely
an irregularity covered by Section 99 of the Code and the decree passed by the court is not a nullity. [30]
The object of this Section is to ensure that the higher judiciary s not overburdened with suits and to afford
convenience to the parties and witnesses who may be examined in such suits. [31]
Subject to pecuniary or other statutory limitations suits relating to land or other immoveable property such as recovery
of immoveable property, partition of immoveable property, foreclosure, sale or redemption of a mortgage upon
immoveable property; determination of any other right or interest in any immoveable property; compensation for
wrong to immoveable property are instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is
situated [Section 16].
Section 16 recognises a well-established British principle that action against res or property should be brought only
in the forum where the res is situate. [32] This section ensures that a court has no jurisdiction over a matter in regard
to which it cannot give effective judgment. [33]
Where a suit relating to immoveable property is situated within the jurisdiction of different courts, the suit may be
instituted within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situated [Section 17].
According to Section 18 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 where it is uncertain as to the local limits of which court any
immoveable property is situated, any of those courts may if satisfied that there ground for uncertainty, record a
statement to that effect and thereupon proceed to entertain and dispose of any suit relating to that property.
A suit for compensation for wrong done to a person or to a moveable property, if the wrong was done within the
territorial jurisdiction of one court and the defendant resides or carries on business or works personally for gain within
the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of another court, the suit may be instituted in either of the courts at the option of
the plaintiff [Section 19].
Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a court within the territorial limits of which the
defendants or each of the defendants at the time of the institution of the suit reside or carry on business or personally
work for gain [Section 20(a)]. Furthermore, if there is more than one defendant, then the suit can be instituted with the
leave of the court at the place where any of the defendants at the time of the commencement of the suit, reside or
carry on business or personally work for gain [Section 20(b)]. Alternatively, such suits can be instituted where the
cause of action wholly or in part arises [Section 20(c)]. From its very wording it can be seen that this is a residuary
section. [34]
According to Section 21 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 no objection as to the place of suing or no objection as to
the objection as to the objection of a court with reference to its pecuniary jurisdiction 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.
No suit shall lie challenging the validity of a decree passed in a former suit between the same parties on any ground
based on an objection as to the place suing [Section 21A] [35] .
Under Section 120 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 the provisions of Section 16,17 and 20 do not apply to the High
Court in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court and of the Bombay High Court to entertain suits under its ordinary original civil
jurisdiction is determined by Clause 12 of the respective Letters Patent of the Calcutta High Court and Bombay High
Court. [36]
Under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent in the case of suits of land or other immoveable property, the High Court has
jurisdiction if such land or property is situated wholly within jurisdiction and in case leave of the court is obtained
(which should be specifically granted by the court), situated in part. In all other cases, where the cause of action has
arisen wholly within jurisdiction or where the leave of the court is obtained in part, or where the defendant resides or
carries on business or personally works for gain. Cause of action means the entire bundle of facts which the plaintiff
must prove in order to succeed. [37]
Conclusion
Conferring jurisdiction is a legislative function. Exercise of jurisdiction is the Courts function. Even enquiry into the
existence of jurisdiction is also for the Courts to decide. Jurisdiction should not be confused with a decision. Even if a
competent court has jurisdiction, it may decide a case rightly or wrongly which can be challenged only in appeal on
the grounds of its correctness and validity and not on the grounds as to jurisdiction

S.16 Suits to be instituted where subject
matter situate

Subject to pecuniary and other limitations prescribed by any law, suits for:
1) Recovery of immoveable property with or without rents and profits,
2) Partition of immoveable property,
3) Foreclosure, sale, redemption in cases of mortgage or charge upon immoveable property,
4) Determination of any other right or interest in immoveable property,
5) Compensation of wrong to immoveable property,
6) Recovery of moveable property actually under attachment,

Shall be instituted in Court, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate. It is
also provided that

- When suit is filed t obtain relief respecting or compensating any wrong to any immoveable
property,
- And relief can be entirely obtained through personal obedience.

In above case, the suit can be instituted either at
Court within whose local limit the property is situated.
Court within whose local jurisdiction the defendant voluntarily resides or conducts business or
trade.

Anand Bazaar Patrika V Biswanath Prasad
Held a suit for Specific performance for, contract of sale with possession, it has to be instituted
in the Court in whose jurisdiction the property is situated and can not be filed where cause of action
arises.

Seetha Rama Chetty V Kamala Amma
In a suit filed in Bangalore for a property located in Tamilnadu, to determine right and interest
in the immoveable property, Court held that as long as the defendant is residing within the
jurisdiction of Bangalore Court, where the suit is instituted, the suit was maintainable under S.16(d)
read with the proviso.

S.17 Suits for immovable property situate within jurisdiction of different Courts
Where the subject matter of the suit, immoveable property, is situated within the local
jurisdiction of two or more different Courts, the suits may be instituted in any Court, within whose
local jurisdiction, a portion of the property is situated, and Court is competent to adjudicate over
entire suit property, not just portion situated in its jurisdiction.

S.18 Place of institution of suit where local limits of jurisdiction of Courts are uncertain
When it is uncertain as regards under which of the two or more Courts, the territorial
jurisdiction falls into, and one of such Courts has also ascertained such uncertainty, then it may
proceed to entertain and dispose the suit related to the property; after recording the existence of
such uncertainty.

Where no such statement has been recorded and objection is raised in appeal or revision, the
Higher Court will not allow such objection unless

=> At time of institution of suit, no reasonable ground for uncertainty as to Court was
there, and,
=> It has resulted in consequent failure of justice.
In these cases, apart from the uncertain territorial jurisdiction, the Court should be competent as
regards
-> nature of suit -> pecuniary jurisdiction.

S.19 Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables

In case of wrong to person or moveables :-
=> In place where Cause of Action arose
=> In place where the defendant ordinarily resides or carries business or personally
works for gain.
Eg
Defendant Hits Plaintiff
A --------------------------> B
Madras Delhi Delhi <= Place of Residence/Occurrence

Cause of action lies in Delhi, so can sue in Delhi. The defendant resides in Madras, so can sue in
Madras.

S.20 Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises

Subject to afore said limitations, i.e Ss 15 to 19,every suit shall be instituted in Court within
whose local limits of jurisdiction:-

- Defendant(s) at time of commencement of suit actually or voluntarily resides carries business or
trade or personally works for gain.

- any of the defendant ( if more than one) at time of commencement of suit actually or voluntarily
resides carries business or trade or personally works for gain, provided (a) Court gives leave to do so
(b) Defendants who dont reside there accept.

- Where cause of action arises.

For the purpose of S. 20, it is deemed that a Corporation carries on its business at its

- Sole/ Principal office.

- Sub-Ordinate Office, if cause of action arose at such location.

Eg

A resides in Shimla, B resides in Calcutta , C resides in Delhi. A B and C together in Benaras , and B and
C together execute a joint promissory note payable on demand and delivered it to A in Benaras.

A may sue B and C at (A) Benaras where Cause of Action.
(B) Calcutta or Delhi where A/B resides provided other defendant accepts or Court
grants leave.

Patel Roadways V Parsad Trading Company 1992

Where defendant has Principal Office at one place and Sub Ordinate office at another, and
Cause of Action arose, in place where the subordinate office is located, then the place of subordinate
office where cause of action arose is the relevant place for filing the suit and not the place where
principal office is located. Held, that, the explanation to S.20 provides an alternative locus for
corporations place of business and not an additional one.

ABC Lamnart Private Ltd V AP Agencies

Held, the jurisdiction of Court in matter of contract will depend on the situs of contract and
Cause of Action arising through connecting factors. Further held, the parties may agree to vest
jurisdiction in one of the many competent Court and such Ouster Clause is valid if
- the clause is explicit , precise and unambiguous.
- not hit by Ss. 23 and 28 of Indian Contract Act.

S.21 Objections to jurisdiction

No objection as to place of suing is allowed in any Appellate or Revisionary Court , unless
- such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity.
- in cases where settlement is arrived, at or before, such settlement and
- there has been a consequent failure of justice.
No objection as to competence of Court as to pecuniary jurisdiction will be allowed at any appellate
or revisionary Court unless, conditions mentioned above are satisfied.

No objection as to competence of executing Court will be allowed unless
- such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and,
- there has been a consequent failure of justice.

RSDV Finance Company Ltd V Shree Vallabh Glass Works 1993

Where in respect of a suit the two conditions namely
1)such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible
opportunity.
2) in cases where settlement is arrived, at or before, such settlement , are satisfied and
the third condition namely
3) there has been a consequent failure of justice, has not been satisfied, it was HELD
that Court would not be justified in allowing objection to jurisdiction of Court in appeal.