1st INTERNAL ASSIGNMENT

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE COURT-I

INHERENT JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO TAKE

COGNIZANCE OF ALL SUITS OF CIVIL NATURE

NAME :ASHAM SHARMA

PRN: 17010126491
Division :E, 2nd Year
ANALYSIS: INHERENT JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO TAKE
COGNIZANCE OF ALL SUITS OF CIVIL NATURE

ABSTRACT

Section 9 of Civil Procedure Court talks about jurisdiction of the courts to handle all the civil
suits. This section tells about the full scope of jurisdiction done by the civil courts and also
where the jurisdiction of the court doesn’t lie upon. There are many exceptions where the
jurisdiction of civil court is barred. For instance- when it’s against the public policy etc.
Inherent jurisdiction is a doctrine of English common law that a superior court has the
power to hear any matter that comes to it, but if there’s an established statue or rule then it
has to been governed by that particular statue/rule. The innate power of the court to exercise
its procedural jurisdiction to avoid bias and ensure efficiency in litigation has long been
recognised as an indispensable element of the administration of justice. However, after
independence there are several changes which lead to rise of the scope of section 9.
Although, there are exceptions but the civil court has the jurisdiction for administrative
justice such as natural justice, fairness etc.

INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS JURISDICTION?

Jurisdiction is referred as the power of the courts to decide the disputes which are litigated
before it or to take cognizance of the matters presented in formal way for its decision. In
general words, it’s the power of the court to decide the cases which are presented before
them. Sometimes, courts have the partial jurisdiction, not the full jurisdiction. For instance:
Civil court has the jurisdiction to settle some disputes about the Contract Act, but it doesn’t
have the pecuniary jurisdiction to pass any relief orders.

WHAT IS INHERENT JURISDICTION OF A COURT?

In sum, it may be said that the inherent jurisdiction of the court is a virile and practical
doctrine and has been defined as being the reserve or fund of powers, a residual source of
powers, which the court may draw upon as necessary whenever it is just or equitable to do so,
in particular to ensure the observance of due process of law, to prevent vexation or
oppression, to do justice between the parties and to secure a fair trial between them.

BRIEF ANALYSIS OF SECTION 9 OF CPC WITH REFERENCE TO THE

INHERENT POWERS

Under the Code of Civil Procedure, a civil court has the jurisdiction to try all the suits of civil
nature unless they are barred. Section 9 says that “The court shall have jurisdiction to try all
suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is expressly or impliedly
barred.”1 Although, there’s no definition of the word “civil” in the code. According to the
dictionary meaning it relates to the private rights and remedies of a citizen as differentiated
from criminal, political, administrative etc. Moreover, it is not the status of the parties to the
suit, but the subject-matter of case defines whether the suit is of civil nature or not. Suits of
civil nature will only cover-up the private rights and duties of a citizen, no political and
religious question come under this expression.2 But if the central issue is of the civil nature
and it incidentally involves some religious or political question then it is not ceased to a suit
of civil nature and the jurisdiction of the civil court is not barred3 Explanation II was added
after the amendment in 1976, which clarifies that a suit related to a religious office is
maintainable whether or not it carries any fees or whether or not it is attached to a particular
place. Most Rev. PMA Metropolitan vs Moran Mar Marthoma explains the scope of
jurisdiction of civil courts as per section 9 of CPC where the SC states “The earlier part opens
the door widely and latter debars entry to only those which are expressly or impliedly barred.
The two explanations, one existing from inception and later added in 1976, bring out clearly
the legislative intention of extending operation of the section to religious matters where right
to property or office is involved irrespective of whether any fee is attached to the office or
not. The language used is simple but explicit and clear. It is structured on the basic of a
civilized jurisprudence that absence of machinery for enforcement of right renders it
nugatory. The heading which is normally a key to the section brings out unequivocally that
all civil suits are cognizable unless bared. What is meant by it is explained further by
1
Bare Act of Code of Civil Procedure
2
C.K. Takwani, Civil Procedure with Limitation Act, 1963, Eighth Edition
3
Explanation I of Section 9 Code of Civil Procedure
widening the ambit of the section by use of the word ‘shall’ and the expression ‘all suits of a
civil nature unless expressly or impliedly barred”.4

SUIT EXPRESSLY BARRED

A suit is said to be expressively barred when barred by any enactment for the time being in
force5. This will include acts, statutes, orders, by-laws etc. Section 11 bars a court from trying
a suit in which matter in issue is res judicata. Section 47 bars a decree holder from filing a
suit when he can file execution proceedings. If there are specific tribunals established for
certain disputes then jurisdiction of civil court is barred. This includes tribunals like Industrial
Tribunal, Election Tribunal, Revenue Tribunal, Rent Tribunal, cooperative Tribunal, Income
Tax Tribunal, Motor Vehicles Claim Tribunal etc. In State of T.N. v Ramalinga Samigal
Madam6 the court held that if the remedy provided by a tribunal is inadequate and there are
other questions or issues which can’t be answered/decided by the special tribunal then the
jurisdiction of civil court arises.

SUIT IMPLIEDLY BARRED

A suit is known to be impliedly barred when it doesn’t comply with the general principles of
law or it is opposing the public policy or the state policy. For instance: Suit by a witness to
recover money agreed to be paid to him for giving evidence in a Court of Law and suits based
on illegal or immoral contracts.  There may, however, be cases where the remedy provided is
not exclusive but in supplement to the remedy provided by the civil court. In such cases,
jurisdiction of civil court is not impliedly barred. For example, in the recent case of State of
Karnataka v. Vishwabarathi House Building Co-op. Society7, it was observed by the apex
court that by Section 3 of Consumer Protection Act, it is apparent that the remedies provided
there under are not in derogation of those provided under other laws.

JURISDICTION NOT FULLY BARRED

4
AIR 1995 SC 2001
5
Umrao Singh vs Bhagwati Singh, AIR 1956 SC 15: 1956 SCR 62
6
AIR 1986 SC 794
7
AIR1991Kant133
Even when the jurisdiction of civil court is barred, it cannot be read as exclusion of its
jurisdiction altogether. Civil court has the right to examine the acts and rules which have been
applied or not, or whether the order passed by the tribunals is arbitrary, unlawful, contrary to
law, violative to the principles of natural justice etc. In In Radha Kishan v. Ludhiana
Municipality8 Justice Subba Rao stated “Even in such cases, the Civil Court's jurisdiction is
not completely ousted. A suit in a civil Court will always lie to question the order of a
tribunal created by a statute, even if its order is, expressly or by necessary implication, made
final, if the said tribunal abuses its power or does not act under the Act but in violation of its
provisions." In Premier Automobiles v Kamlekar Shantaram9, SC laid down some principles
for the industrial disputes:
(1) If a dispute is not a industrial dispute and no act lies the remedy arises only in the civil
court.
(2) If dispute arises arising out of liability under the general or common law but not under
any act, jurisdiction of civil court is alternative

(3) If disputes relates to the enforcement of right under the particular act, then to get remedy
the suitor is get an adjudication under the act.

CONCLUSION

A civil court has jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature unless their cognisance is
barred either expressively or impliedly. Consent can neither confer nor take away any
decision making powers of a court. There is a distinction between want of jurisdiction
and irregular exercise thereof. Every court has innate power to decide the question of its
own jurisdiction. Jurisdiction of a court depends upon the allegations made in the plaint
and not upon the defence in a written statement. 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.

8
AIR 1963 SC 1547
9
AIR 1975 SC 2238