1

Paper presentation
on
Jurisdiction of courts
1. Introduction :

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. Jurisdiction is key question for the court which goes to the root of

the case and decide the fate of matter either at preliminary stage or on merit. If any

order passed without jurisdiction, it becomes nullity and not enforceable by law.

The jurisidiction of civil courts can be divided on the basis of pecuniary,

Territorial and subject matter.

2.Pecuniary Jurisidiction : 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. As

per A.P Civil Courts Act the pecuniary jurisidiction of the courts is as follows:

Suits amounting up to Rs.3,00,000/- lie before the Junior Civil Judge's Courts.Suits

over 3,00,000/- and but not exceeding Rs. 15,00,000/- lie before the Senior Civil

Judge's Courts and exceeding Rs. 15,00,000/- lie before District Courts. It is an

important to note that High Court has no Pecuniary Jurisidiction and only appeal lies

before it.

3.Territorial Jurisidiction: Section 16 to 20 of C.P.C deals with Territorial

jurisidiction 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
 2

property. Section 20 of C.P.C is residuary provision and cover all cases not falling

under Section 16 to 19.

4)Territory of a court is decided after taking into account several

factors they are

A) In case of immovable property

a) If the suit is with regard to recovery, rent, partion, sale, redumption, determination

of right of immovable property it shall be instituted in the court with in the local limits

of whoes jurisidiction the property is situated.

b) Immovable property situated with in the jurisidiction of different courts.

In such case the suit may be instituted in any court with in the local limits of whose

jurisidiction any portion of the property is situated.

c)In case of dispute between 2 or more persons with respect to movable property,

business are any other wrong done -

In the place where wrong are damage has been caused to a person are any damaged

has been caused to movable property then the suit may be instituted either in the place

where wrong are damaged caused or in the place where defendant (The person who

caused the loss) resides.

d) where there is a dispute in busines, agreement or any kind of civil disputes except

matermonial matter than the suit may be instituted either in a place where the

defendant resides or carries on business or in a place where the cause of action has

arisen, i.e where the dispute or wrong took place.

e) In case of matermonial dispute where a dispute arised between husband and wife

with regard to their materimonial life than the case may be filed in the place where

marriage was solemized or in 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.

5) Section of 9 of C.P.C deals with the jurisidiction of Civil Court in general it

says that the courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisidiction

to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their conginegence is either

expressily or implidely barred.

A civil court has jurisidiction to try a suit if two conditions are

fullfiled

1) The suit must be of a civil nature and

2) The congengence of such a suit should not have been expressily or impliedly

barred

A) The expression " suit of civil nature " will cover private rights of

obligation of a citizen political and religios questions are not covered by that

expression. A suit in which the principal question is relates to caste or religion is not a

suit of a civil nature. But if the principal question in a suit is of a civil nature ( They

right to property or to an office) and the adjudication incidentally involves the

determination relating to a caste question or to religious rights and ceremonies, it does

not sease to be suit of a civil nature and the jurisidication of a civil court is not barred.
 4

The court has jurisidication to adjudicate upon those questions also in order to decide

the principal question which is of a civil nature.

B) Suits Expressily Barred : A suit is said to be expressily barred when it is

barred by any enactiment for the time being in force. If there is any doubt about the

ousting of jurisidiction of a civil court the court will lean to an interpretation which

would maintin the jurisidiction every presemption should be made in favour of the

jurisidication of the civil court and the provisions of exclussion of jurisidication of a

court must be strictly construed. If the remedy provided by the statute is not adequate

and all questions can not be decided by a special tribunal the jurisidication of a civil

court is not barred similarly when a court of limited jurisidication prima facie and

incidentely states something the jurisidication of a civil court to finally decide the

matter is not to ousted.

C) Suits Impliedly Barred: A suit is said to be impliedly barred when it is barred

by general principals of law. Where a specific remedy given by a statue, it there by

deprivs the person who insiste upon a remedy of any other form than that given by

the statue. Where an act creats an obligation and enforces its performance in a

specified manner that performance can not be enforced in any other manner similerly

certain suits though of a civil nature, are barred from the congnigence of a civil court

on the ground of public policy. Thouse no suit shall lie for recovery of cost incurred in

criminal prosecution or for enforcement of a right up on a contract hit by section 23 of

the indian contract Act 1872 or against any judge for acts done in the course of his
 5

duties. Like was a civil court has no jurisidication to adjudicate upon dispite of

political nature.

D) The question of jurisdiction is question of law which goes to the root of the case

and is to be decided first. A plea of bar to jurisdiction of a civil court must be

considered having regard to the contentions raised in the plaint. For the said purpose,

averments disclosing cause of action and the reliefs sought for therein must be

considered in their entirety. The Court may not be justified in determining the

question, one way or the other, only having regard to the reliefs claimed de'hors the

factual averments made in the plaint. The rules of pleadings postulate that a plaint

must contain material facts.

e) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhulabhai, etc. v. Stateof

Madhya Pradesh and others reported in A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 78

(Constitutional Bench) while discussing the provision of section 9 of CPC

laid down the law as under :

(I) Where the statute gives a finality to the orders of the special tribunals the Civil

Court's jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what

the Civil Courts would normally do in a suit. Such provision, however, does not

exclude those cases where the provisions of the particular Act have not been complied

with or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental

principles of judicial procedure.

(II) Where there is an express bar of the jurisdiction of the court, an examination of
 6

the scheme of the particular Act to find the adequacy or the sufficiency of the

remedies provided may be relevant but is not decisive to sustain the jurisdiction of the

civil court.

(III) Where there is no express exclusion the examination of the remedies and the

scheme of the particular Act to find out the intendment becomes necessary and the

result of the inquiry may be decisive. In the latter case it is necessary to see if the

statute creates a special right or a liability and provides for the determination of the

right or liability and further lays down that all questions about the said right and

liability shall be determined by the tribunals so constituted, and whether remedies

normally associated with actions in Civil Courts are prescribed by the said statue or

not.

(IV) Challenge to the provisions of the particular Act as ultra vires cannot be brought

before Tribunals constituted under that Act. Even the High Court cannot go into that

question on a revision or reference from the decision of the Tribunals.

(V) When a provision is already declared unconstitutional or the

constitutionality of any provision is to be challenged, a suit is open. A writ of

certiorari may include a direction for refund if the claim is clearly within the time

prescribed by the Limitation Act but it is not a compulsory remedy to replace a suit.

(VI) Where the particular Act contains no machinery for refund of taxcollected in

excess of constitutional limits or illegally collected a suit lies.

(VII) Questions of the correctness of the assessment apart from itsconstitutionality

are for the decision of the authorities and a civil suit dies not lie if the orders of the

authorities are declared to be final or there is an express prohibition in the particular

Act. In either case the scheme of the particular Act must be examined because it is a

relevant enquiry.

(VIII) An exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not readily to be inferred

unless the conditions above set down apply. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter

of (Abdul Gafur vs State of Utterakhand 2008 (10) SCC 97 , taking recourse to the

jurisdiction of Civil Court, have observed that as per section 9 CPC, in all types of,

civil disputes, the Civil Courts have inherent jurisdiction unless a part of that

jurisdiction is carved out from such jurisdiction, expressly or by necessary implication

by any statutory provision and conferred on other Tribunal or Authority. Thus, the law

confers on every person an inherent right to bring a suit of civil nature of one's choice,

at one's peril, howsoever frivolous the claim may be, unless it is barred by a statute.

6) Issue of jurisdiction as a Preliminary Issue :

(A) Section 9A of CPC provides that if, at the hearing of any application for

granting or setting aside an order granting any interim relief , an objection to the

jurisdiction of the Court to entertain such a suit is taken by any of the parties to the

suit, the Court shall proceed to determine at the hearing of such application the issue

as to the jurisdiction as a preliminary issue before granting or setting aside the order

granting the interim relief. It provides that any such application shall be heard and

disposed of by the Court expeditiously as possible and shall not in any case be
 8

adjourned tothe hearing of the suit. The provisions of law contained in Subsection (2 )

o f Section 9A empowers the Court to grant any such interim relief as it may consider

necessary, pending determination by it of the preliminary issue as to the jurisdiction.

(B) Order 14 Rule 2: Court to pronounce judgment on all issues :

(1) Notwithstanding that case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the Court

shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), pronounce judgment on all issues.

(2) where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is o

opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it

may try that issue first if that issue relates to-

(a) The jurisdiction of the Court, or

(b) A bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force,

and for the purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues

until after that issue has been determined, and may deal with the suit in accordance

with the decision on that issue.

(C) Under O. 7 R. 11 (d) the plaint shall be rejected where the suit appears from

the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. Such plea is called plea of

demurrer vide para 13 of Ramesh B. Desai v. Bipin Vadilal Mehta AIR 2006 SC 3672.

However in this regard only and only plaint allegations are to be considered and

neither any averment either in the written statement or in any application made by the

defendant nor any evidence adduced by the defendant is to be seen. In para 8 of Bhau

Ram v. Janak Singh, AIR 2012 SC 3023 the honerable Supreme Court held as
 9

follows:-

The law has been settled by this court in various decisions that while considering

an application under order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. the court has to examine the averments

in the plaint and the pleas taken by the defendant in its written statement would be

irrelevant.

(D) In respect of resjudicata it has been held in Vaish Aggarwal Panchayat v. Inder

Kumar AIR 2015 SC 3357, that this question is mixed question of law and fact,

requiring consideration of earlier judgment and pleading, hence on this ground plaint

cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d).

(E) Regarding bar of limitation it has been held that unless it becomes apparent

from the reading of the petition that the same is barred by limitation the petition

cannot be rejected under order 7 rule 11(d) C.P.C. In Fatehji & Company v. L.M.

Nagpal AIR 2015 SC 2301 it was held that by reading the plaint alone and taking all

the allegations made therein to be correct, suit for specific performance of agreement

for sale was barred by limitation. Reversing the judgment of the High Court it was

held that the trial court rightly rejected the plaint under order 7 rule 11 (d) C.P.C.

(F) Plaint may be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) at any stage of the suit, even

after settlement of issues vide Samar Singh v. Kedar Nath SAIR 1987 SC 1926,

referred to in para 19 of Vithalbhai Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 1891

quoted below:- In Samar Singh v. Kedar Nath, AIR 1987 SC 1929: 1987 Supp. SCC

663 this Court while dealing with an election petition has held that the power to
 10

summarily reject conferred by Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be

exercised at the threshold of the proceedings and is also available, in the absence of

any restriction statutorily placed, to be exercised at any stage of subsequent

proceedings. However, the Court has also emphasized the need of raising a

preliminary objection as to maintainability as early as possible though the power of

the court to consider the same at a subsequent stage is not taken away.

(G) Accordingly, in spite of O. 14 R. 2 not being mandatory, by virtue of O. 7

R.11(d) question of jurisdiction has to be decided as preliminary point/ issue, if it

does not require any evidence and inquiry into facts. However, under O. 14 R. 2 such

issue may be decided as preliminary issue even after taking and considering the

evidence relevant to the said issue. But this exercise is discretionary, while O. 7 R. 11

is mandatory.

(H) Under order 14 rule 2(2) no factual controversy can be decided. the

honerable Supreme Court in Major S.S. Khanna v. Brig. F.J. Dillon, AIR 1964 SC 497

(para 18) held that ―Normally all the issues in a suit should be tried by

the Court: not to do so, especially when the decision on issues even of

law depends upon the decision of issues of fact would result in lop-

sided trial of the suit. Even though decision on issue of fact is barred but

consideration of evidence is not barred under order 14 rule 2(2) otherwise it will

become redundant as the entire filed would be covered by order 7 rule 11(d). The

distinction is that such evidence which is not denied or in normal course cannot be
 11

denied can be taken into consideration under order 14 rule 2(2) while deciding issue

of law as preliminary issue. Suppose in a plaint nothing is stated regarding earlier

litigation between the same parties and on the same cause of action. The defendant

asserts that the suit is barred by res-judicata or order 9 rule 9 and files certified copies

of pleadings and judgments of the earlier suit. The plaint cannot be rejected under

order 7 rule 11(d) as it does not disclose the bar.

(I) However the issue of bar framed on the plea of the defendant may be decided

as preliminary issue under order 14 rule 2(2) after taking into consideration the

evidence adduced by the defendant in the form of certified copies unless plaintiff

disputes correctness of the same. Similarly at the stage of order 14 rule 2(2)

evidence of parties or their representatives under order 10 rule 2 may also Similarly at

the stage of order 14 rule 2(2) evidence of parties or their representatives under order

10 rule 2 may also be taken into consideration. In fact such statement may be taken

into consideration even at the stage of order 7 rule 11(a).

(J) Under order 7 rule 11(a) ―the plaint shall be rejected where it does not disclose

a cause of action. There is lot of difference between not having a cause of action,

which may be decided after evidence, and not disclosing cause of action which is to

be decided by reading only the plaint.

7) Challenge at what stage :

(A) Section 21 of the CPC deals with the stage challenging the jurisdiction. The

stage of challenging the jurisdiction came up before Hon'ble Apex Court in Harshad
 12

Chiman Lal Mod i v . DLF Universal Ltd. And Anr . reported in AIR 2005 SC 4446

and observed that the jurisdiction of a court may be classified into several categories.

The important categories are (i) territorial or local jurisdiction; (ii) pecuniary

jurisdiction; and (iii) jurisdiction over the subjectmatter.

(B) So far as territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction are concerned, objection to

such jurisdiction has to be taken at the earliest possible opportunity and in

any case at or before settlement of issues. The law is well settled on the point

that if such objection is not taken at the earliest, it cannot be allowed to be taken at a

subsequent stage. Jurisdiction as to subjectmatter, however, is totally distinct

and stands on a different footing. Where a court has no jurisdiction over the

subjectmatter of the suit by reason of any limitation imposed by statute, charter or

commission, it cannot take up the cause or matter. An order passed by a court having

no jurisdiction is a nullity,and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and

wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and

even in collateral proceedings. A defect of jurisdiction strikes at the very authority of

the court to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of

parties. In Chief Engineer Hydel Project Vs. Ravinder Nath reported in

AIR 2008 SC 1315 Hon'ble Apex Court observed that once the original decree

itself has been held to be without jurisdiction and hit by the doctrine of coram non

judice, there would be no question of upholding the same merely on the ground that

the objection to the jurisdiction was not taken at the initial,First Appellate or the
 13

Second Appellate stage.

9) Presumption as to jurisdiction:

In deling with the question whether a civil courts jurisdiction to entertain a suit is

barred or not, it is necessary to bear in mind that every presumption should be made in

favor of the jurisdition of the civil court. The exclusiion of jurisdiction of a civil court

to entertain civil causes should not be readily inferred unless the relivent statue

contains an express provision to that effect or leads to a necessary and invitable

implication of the nature.

10) Generall principles relating to jurisdiction of civil courts :

A) A Civil court has jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature unless their

congingence is barred either expressly or implidely.

B) Concernt can neither confer nor take away jurisdiction of a court.

C) 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 proceddings or even

in collateral proceedings.

D) There is a distance between want of jurisdiction and irregular exercise thereof

E) Every court has inharent power to decide the question of its own jurisdiction.

F) Jurisdiction of a court depends upon the evernments made in plaint and upon the

defence in a written statement.

G) For decideing jurisdiction of a court substance of a matter and not its form is

important
 14

H) Every presemption should be made in favor of jurisdiction of a civil court

I) A statue ousting the jurisdiction of a civil court must be strictly constroued.

J)Bardden of proff of exclusion of jurisdiction of a court is on the party who asserts it.

K) 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 dehors

the provision of law.

11) Conclusion:

Section 9 at the threshold of the civil proceddure code primilerly deals with the

questio0n of civil courts jurisdiction to entertain a cause. It lays down that subject to

what are contained in section 10, 11, 12, 13, 47, 66, 83, 84, 91, 92, 115, etc., civil

court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit of civil nature execept when its congnigence

expressily barred or barred by necessary implication.

Submitted by

( K.Srinivasa Rao)
Prl.Senior Civil Judge,
Rajampet.
15