For Judiciary Mains preparation

Join Instagram – @aplclegal

Join Telegram – t.me/aplclegal and t.me/indianlawforum (discussion group)
Email – adv.apurvapanwar@gmail.com

- By Apurva Panwar

Question - “Exclusion of jurisdiction of civil court shall not be readily inferred.” Discuss the
statement.

Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a civil court has jurisdiction to try all suits of
civil nature unless their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. A statute may bar the
jurisdiction of civil courts in respect of a particular matter either expressly or by necessary
implication. However, a statute ousting the jurisdiction of a civil court must be strictly interpreted.
In dealing with a question whether a civil court’s jurisdiction to entertain a suit is barred or not,
every presumption should be made in favour of the jurisdiction of a civil court. The exclusion of
jurisdiction of a civil court to entertain any suit of civil nature should not be readily inferred unless
such exclusion is either expressly provided by law or can be clearly implied. The burden of proof
that the Court has no jurisdiction to try a particular suit is on the party who asserts it.

In the case of Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1969), the Supreme Court laid down the
following principles relating to the exclusion of jurisdiction of civil courts –

(1) Where the statute gives 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.

(2) Where there is an express bar of jurisdiction of a court, an examination of the scheme of a
particular Act to find the adequacy or sufficiency of the remedies provided may be relevant but this
is not decisive for sustaining the jurisdiction of a civil court.

(3) Where there is no express exclusion, the examination of the remedies and the scheme of a
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 tribunals so constituted, and whether remedies
normally associated with actions in civil courts are prescribed by the said statute or not.
(4) A challenge to the provisions of a 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 decisions of tribunals.

(5) When a provision is already declared unconstitutional or the constitutionality of any provisions
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.

(6) Where a particular Act contains no machinery for refund of tax collected in excess of
constitutional limits or illegally collected tax, a suit will lie in a civil court.

(7) An exclusion of jurisdiction of a civil court is not to be readily inferred.