27/08/2021 Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

  
     
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

Section 15 - Court
in which suits to be instituted

ANNOTATION

Reference/Relevance within Statute

Section 16 (suits to be instituted where subject-matter situate);

Case Cited

1. Custodian, Evacuee Property v. Amarnath MANU/JK/0031/1981: AIR 1981 J& K 88.

2. Hurro Chunder Roy Chowdhury v. Soorodhonee Debia, (1868) 9 Suth WR 402.

3. Dr. Francisco Luis Jose v. Vithal Bhadu Tamboskar, MANU/MH/0248/1989: AIR 1989 Bom 303.

4. Kesavan v. Thomman, MANU/KE/0061/1964: AIR 1964Ker206.

5. Savani Transport (Private) Limited v. Gangadhar Ghosh MANU/WB/0065/1986: AIR 1986 Cal 330.

6. Vidya Amma v. Lakshmi, AIR 1958 AP 218.

7. Bipan Kumar v. Shyam Sunder MANU/HP/0035/1977: AIR 1977HP90.

8. Smt.Germanthangi v. F. Rokunga AIR 2000 Gau 4.

9. Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan MANU/SC/0116/1954: AIR 1954 SC 340.

10. Manzurul v. Hakim, MANU/UP/0087/1970: AIR 1970 All 604.

11. N.K. Parmar v. District Panchayat, MANU/GJ/0082/1990: AIR 1990 Guj 142.

12. Mahesh Gupta v.: Mr. Ranjit Singh MANU/DE/0204/2009.

13. Bipan Kumar v. Sham Sunder, MANU/HP/0035/1977: AIR 1977 HP 90.

14. Balgonda A. Parvati v. Ramgonda S. Parvati, ILR 1970 Bom 815: 1970 Mah LJ 641: 1971 Bom LR
582.

15. Inayat Husain v. Bashir Ahmad MANU/UP/0049/1932: AIR 1932 All 413; Devender Singh v. Bhole
Ram AIR 1991 All 154.

16. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd v. All India Bharat Sanchar Nigam Executives' Association (Regd.)
MANU/DE/8173/2006.

17. Nandita Bose v. Ratanlal Nahata MANU/SC/0558/1987: AIR 1987 SC 1947.

18. Vidya Amma v. Lakshmi, AIR 1958 AP 218.

19. Benudhar v. Prabir Chandra, MANU/OR/0032/1985: AIR 1985 Ori 117.

20. Suresh Kumar v. State of M. P., MANU/MP/0007/1975: AIR 1975 MP 30

21. Bansilal v. Dadus, MANU/RH/0091/1957: AIR 1957 Raj 241

SYNOPSIS

1. Scope 3. Competent to try it

............................................ ...................... 169
168
2. Court of lowest grade 4. Pecuniary jurisdiction
................. 169 ................. 170
www.manupatrafast.in.elibrary.nirmauni.ac.in/Search/dispCommentary.aspx?nActCompId=20186&actid=787&iPage=1&hText= 1/3
27/08/2021 Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy
1. Scope.

Sections 15 to 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for the provisions of law with regard to
jurisdiction of the Court for institution of the suit. The word "suit" has not been defined in the Code,
though it is generally understood to mean a civil proceeding that commences with the filing of a
plaint (Custodian, Evacuee Property v. Amarnath).1 The word "suit" does not necessarily mean an
action nor does the words "cause of action" and "Defendant" necessarily mean cause upon which an
action has been brought, or a person against whom an action had been brought, in the ordinary
restricted sense of the words. Any proceeding in a Court of Justice to enforce a demand is a suit; the
person who applies to the Court is a suitor for relief; the person who defends himself against the
enforcement of the relief sought is a Defendant; and the claim, if recoverable, is a cause of action
(Hurro Chunder Roy Chowdhury v. Soorodhonee Debia).2

Section 15 of the Code requires that every suit has to be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade,
subject to the condition that such Court must be competent to try the suit which has been instituted
before the Court. Every suit is not to be in the Court of lowest grade. It is only those suits which the
Court of lowest grade is competent to try. And to see the competency, it is allegations and facts in
the plaint which are most relevant (Dr. Francisco Luis Jose v. Vithal Bhadu Tamboskar).3 The words
'place of suing' in Section 15 has reference only to the venue of the trial and not otherwise
competency of the Court (Kesavan v. Thomman).4 The jurisdiction of the Court as stated in Sections
15 to 20 is essentially territorial (Savani Transport (Private) Limited v. Gangadhar Ghosh).5 The
challenge to jurisdiction under Sections 15 to 20 is entitled to protection under Section 21 of the
Code.

The Section 15 of the Code is a rule of procedure. It does not oust the concurrent jurisdiction of
Courts of higher grade. Although, Courts of higher grade also have the original jurisdiction to
entertain the suit, it should be instituted in the Court of lowest grade as the object of the section is to
reduce the burden of higher Courts (Vidya Amma v. Lakshmi).6 It is now settled law that Section 15
merely prescribes a rule of procedure. It does not deprive the Court of a higher grade of jurisdiction
to entertain the suit (Bipan Kumar v. Shyam Sunder).7 An institution of a suit directly in the Court of
higher grade is an irregularity covered under Section 99 of the Code. When a suit triable by a Court
of lower grade is instituted in a Court of higher grade, the latter Court may return the plaint. It is
only discretionary on the part of such latter Court (i.e. to say the Court of higher grade) either to try
the suit itself or to return the plaint for presentation in the Court of the lower grade. Section 15 is
enacted not merely to avoid overcrowding in the higher Court but also for the convenience for the
parties and witnesses who may be examined by them (Smt.Germanthangi v. F. Rokunga).8

That consent of the party cannot confer jurisdiction on the Court to try a suit (Kiran Singh v. Chaman
Paswan).9

In M. P., U. P. and Maharashtra, a Court of Civil Judge (junior grade) is the Court of lowest grade.
Likewise in Delhi it is Sub-judge, in Rajasthan, West Bengal and Tamil Nadu it is the Court of Munsif
which is of lowest grade. A Court of Small Causes is a Court of preferential jurisdiction and not of
exclusive jurisdiction (Manzurul v. Hakim).10 A suit against District Panchayat can be heard by a
Court of lowest grade (N. K. Parmar v. District Panchayat).11

2. Court of lowest grade.

Section 15 of Code of Civil Procedure provides that every suit is mandatorily to be instituted by a
Plaintiff in the Court of lowest grade competent to try it. This Section is a rule of procedure and has
been incorporated in Code of Civil Procedure so that the different Courts exercise their jurisdiction as
per law and no single Court becomes overcrowded with the suits (Mahesh Gupta v. Mr. Ranjit
Singh)12 and also to avoid overcrowding of suits in the higher Courts and also for the convenience of
the parties and witnesses. This section does not take away the power of higher Courts to entertain
the suit directly. The higher Courts are not bound to return the plaint if a suit could have been filed
before lower Court. To return the plaint is discretionary with the higher Court (Bipan Kumar v. Sham
Sunder).13

The valuation clause in the plaint prima facie determines the forum or Court before whom the plaint
is to be presented. But the valuation cannot be shown arbitrarily by the Plaintiff to save Court-fee
and file suit in a Court of lowest grade. If after institution of suit on evidence it is found that actual
valuation is higher or lower and Court competent to try the suit is a higher or lower Court the plaint
can be returned for presentation before the proper Court (Balgonda A. Parvati v. Ramgonda S.
www.manupatrafast.in.elibrary.nirmauni.ac.in/Search/dispCommentary.aspx?nActCompId=20186&actid=787&iPage=1&hText= 2/3
27/08/2021 Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

Parvati).14 Where the valuation of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction is contested, the value must be
determined by the Court, and where the valuation can be ascertained correctly, the Plaintiff cannot
be allowed to put an arbitrary value upon his claim nor can he be allowed to overvalue or undervalue
his claim with a view to choose his forum (Inayat Husain v. Bashir Ahmad; Devender Singh v. Bhole
Ram).15 Nobody can be permitted to exercise a discretion in such an arbitrary manner which is even
opposed to public policy. In normal course, the Plaintiff would be obliged to institute the suit in the
Court of lowest grade competent to try it in terms of Section 15 of the CPC(Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Ltd v. All India Bharat Sanchar Nigam Executives' Association (Regd.)).16

The Supreme Court has authoritatively held that ordinarily, the valuation of a suit depends upon the
reliefs claimed therein and the Plaintiff's valuation in his plaint determines the Court in which it can
be presented. It is also true that the Plaintiff cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a Court by either
grossly over-valuing or grossly under-valuing a suit. The Court always has the jurisdiction to prevent
the abuse of the process of law (Nandita Bose v. Ratanlal Nahata).17

3. Competent to try it.

The expression "Court competent to try it" means the Court having jurisdiction over the matter. The
jurisdiction should not only be in relation to subject matter but also as to the pecuniary limits (Vidya
Amma v. Lakshmi).18 Competence of a Court to try a suit includes (i) the competence over subject-
matter, (ii) competence as to the parties, (iii) competence regarding giving finding over a question,
(iv) competence to grant relief and (v) competence in terms of pecuniary value. Prima facie, the
competence of Court is determined by applying existing law to the pleadings in the plaint. However, if
the pleadings are found wrong the Court may return the plaint or pass other appropriate Orders
including dismissal of the suit. Certain classes of suits cannot be valued correctly in terms of money.
Such suits are exception to the rule that a Court cannot grant a relief for an amount beyond its
pecuniary jurisdiction e.g. a suit for accounting (Benudhar v. Prabir Chandra).19

4. Pecuniary jurisdiction.

The Court of lowest grade is one which has the power to try the regular suits of lowest pecuniary
limits. The Judge Small Cause Courts is not the Court of lowest grade as the trial of suits in that
Court is not that of a regular suit but suits triable by special procedure. Objection raised as to
pecuniary jurisdiction is not an objection of simple procedural defect (Suresh Kumar v. State of M.
P.).20 Where a Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try a suit at the time of institution of such suit
but later limits of pecuniary jurisdiction are raised and Court becomes competent to try it, according
to Rajasthan High Court (Bansilal v. Dadus),21 the defect of lack of jurisdiction gets cured and the
plaint need not be returned. In view of Sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the Code, want of pecuniary
jurisdiction is not a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction as the same cannot be questioned in appeal or
revision.I

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

By Anupam Srivastava

Pvt. Ltd.
© Manupatra Information Solutions

Disclaimer :
The views and comments expressed in the present category are those of the Author. These should not be taken to reflect the views of the
organisation. Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd. expressly disclaims all responsibility for any loss, injury, liability or damage of any
kind resulting from and arising out of, or any way related to the Content.

www.manupatrafast.in.elibrary.nirmauni.ac.in/Search/dispCommentary.aspx?nActCompId=20186&actid=787&iPage=1&hText= 3/3