Submitted By :

Name : Bhaskar Gupta Bhaya.

ID No.: 191001501034.
Department : BBA-LLB(H).
Section : 4th Semester (2nd Year).
Subject : CPC Assignment.
 

 
Date: 19.05.2021                                           Signature:  Bhaskar Gupta Bhaya.
 Introduction

Suits are generally of various kinds depending upon nature. Such as properties,
contracts, torts, matrimonial proceedings, and so on. The jurisdiction of a court to
entertain, adjudicate and decide a suit is restricted bases on the circumstances of
the suit.

The foremost thing which is to be determined during the filing of a suit is the
place of suing. Which decides the place for trial and it has nothing to do with the
competency of the court. Section 15 to 20 of the Code deal with the place of
suing, that is the forum for an institution of suits in India. These sections are
applicable only to those places where the Code of Civil Procedure is into effect.

“Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium” which means that where there is right there is a remedy,
a basic principle of English right which is accepted by the Indian law. When a
person right is curtailed or being infringed then he has to approach to the
appropriate forum or the appropriate judicial forum for the award of
compensation. Such judicial form must have an authority to adjudicate on the
matter. the judicial forum must have jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Each
Court has a different jurisdiction.
 Place of Suing

Section 15 to 20 deals with the place of suing.

There are three kinds of jurisdiction to determine the place of suing :-

• Territorial jurisdictions

• Pecuniary jurisdictions

• Subject matter jurisdiction.

Whenever the suit is brought before the court the first question is to determine
is whether the court has a jurisdiction to deal with the matter. If the court has all
these (territorial, pecuniary, or subject matter jurisdiction then only the court has
the power to deal with the case. In the case, if the court does not have any of the
abovementioned factors then it will be considered as lack of jurisdiction or the
irregular exercise of jurisdiction. When the court who does not have jurisdiction
decide the case and give decision then such decision will be considered as void or
voidable depending upon the different circumstances
 Section 15

The object of this section is to prevent higher courts from over-burdening of

suits. Section 15 is a rule of procedure and not of jurisdiction. And it lays down
that a suit is instituted in the court of the lowest grade, it does not oust the
jurisdiction of the courts of higher grades which they possess under the Act
constituting them, accordingly, does not apply while exercising original civil
jurisdiction.

Allahabad High Court in “Radha Charan Das v. Mohini Behar”i, held that the
court-fee payable and the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction must be
determined on the basis of allegations made and relief claimed in the suit.
Defence in the written statement has no relevance for such determination.

An objection that the court has no jurisdiction to deal with the subject-matter of
the dispute is not akin to an objection regarding territorial or pecuniary
jurisdiction. If a party may not have raised the point that the court does not have
the jurisdiction to decide the subject-matter of the dispute and ultimately suffers
an order or a decree, such order/decree is nullity and that its invalidity may be
raised wherever and whenever it is tried to be implemented or relied upon, even
at the stage of execution and even in subsequent proceedings.
 Section 16

Section 16 refers to Courts in India and to immovable properties situated in India.

Though, under the Code of Civil Procedure, there is no definition of immovable
property. However, it has been defined under Section 3(26) of the General
Clauses Act, 1985.

Suits for the recovery of immovable property or for the determination of any
other right to or interest in immovable property or for recovery of the movable
property actually under distraint or attachment must be instituted in the Court
within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situated.

The object of the section is to limit the territorial jurisdiction of Courts in regard
to property. The explanation of Section 16 is clear that Courts does not have any
power to entertain suits in respect of properties situated outside India. 

However, courts in India are not prevented from adjudicating any question in
respect of property situated outside their territorial jurisdiction where such
questions arise incidentally.

Suits to be instituted where subject-matter situate.—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) or 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,
 Section 17

This section is intended for the benefits of parties and to prohibit the multiplicity
of suits. It is supplementary to provisions of Section 18 and is not applicable so far
as Clause (f) of Section 16 is concerned. This section provides that where a suit is
to obtain relief in respect of property situated in the jurisdiction of different
Courts, the suit can be transferred to any one of the courts and such court can
deal with the whole of the property though some portion of it is situated outside
its jurisdiction.

It is applicable to several properties either situated in different districts or the

same property extends over several districts.

In “Madhao Deshpande v. Madhav Dharmadhikaree” the Supreme Court held

that where dispute regarding properties was located within the jurisdiction of one
of the courts, that court will have jurisdiction to entertain award. Returning of the
award by the court for presentation to the court within whose jurisdiction other
properties forming the subject matter of the dispute were located, was not
proper.

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.

It states that suit can be filed in any court in whose jurisdiction the property is
situated, this provision is supplementary to Section 16.

Section 18
Where it is uncertain as to within whose jurisdiction of two or more courts the
immovable property is situated any one of those courts may try the suit relating
to that property after recording a statement as to uncertainty, and thereupon
proceed to adjudicate and dispose of the suit relating to that property and its
decree in the suit shall have the same effect as if the property was situated within
the local limits of its jurisdiction.

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
an.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.

Section 18 provides where there is uncertainty in determination of the

jurisdiction. The court shall record the statement of uncertainty if there is any. If
there is no uncertainty then the plaint shall be returned. Any sort of claim of
uncertainty shall be claimed at the earliest. Where the objection has been raised
but the court didn’t preferred it then the defendant has the right to challenge it in
appeal or revision. But if, no objection claimed not any objection as to uncertainty
is recorded then the defendant is debarred from objecting it in appeal or revision.

Section 19
Under this section “a suit for compensation for the wrong done to the person or
personal property may be brought at the option of the plaintiff either where the
wrong is committed or where the defendant resides or carries on business or
personally works for gain.”

Within the meaning of this section, a wrong means the infringement of a legal
right and is consequently an actionable wrong. The section applies only to
actionable wrongs against any person or to movable property. Wrong to any
person refers to the same thing which is termed as trespass to the person.

According to Bombay High Court, a suit for damages for malicious prosecution can
be entertained by Courts at the place where the plaintiff was served with the
summons in the criminal case as the service of the summons is a part of wrong
done to the person.

The aforesaid principle would not be applicable in case of suits to be instituted

against the government for arrears of salary and travelling allowances at a place
where the employee was residing throughout but was employed at a place other
than a place of his residence.

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 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.

Section 19 provides that a suit for compensation for wrong to a person may be
instituted at the option of plaintiff either:

(i) Where such wrong is committed or

(ii) Where the defendant resides or carries on business or personally works for
gain.

For example, A, resident of Muzafarpur, publishes a libel in Patna against B

causing him damages. B may sue A either Patna where tort is committed or at
Muzafarpur, where defendant 'A' resides.

When Applicable

Where the suit is for the wrong caused to the person or property.

Conditions

 If the wrong was done within the local limits of the jurisdiction of one court

And

 The defendant voluntarily resides or carries on his business or works for

personal gain within the local limits of the jurisdiction of another court then
the plaintiff has an option to file at either court.

Example

A, residing in Delhi, beats B in  Bangalore. B may institute the suit either in Delhi
or Bangalore.

A residing in Bangalore, publishes a defamatory statement of B in Delhi. B may

sue A in Bangalore or Delhi.

Section 20
Section 20 enacts the rule as to the forum in cases of personal actions and has to
be read subject to the provisions of section 15 to 19 of the code. The section
designed to secure that justice might be brought as near as possible to every
man’s heart-stone and that the defendant should not be put to the trouble and
expense of travelling a long distance in order to defend himself.

The Principle behind the provisions of clauses (a) and (b) of section 20 is that the
suit is instituted at a place where the defendant is able to defend the suit without
undue trouble.

It has been held that a plain reading of section 20 of the Code of Civil procedure
arguably allows the plaintiff a multitude of choices in regard to where it may
institute its lis, suit or action. Obviously, this is also because every other place
would constitute a forum non-conveniens.

The Supreme Court has harmonized the various hues of the conundrum of the
place of suing in several cases and has gone to the extent laying down that it
should be court’s endeavour to locate the place where the cause of action has
substantially arisen. It has even been held that if the defendant corporation has a
subordinate office in the place where the cause of action arises, litigation must be
instituted at that place alone, regardless of the amplitude of options postulated in
section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside 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.
A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in
3 [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.

Section 20 provides for all the cases not covered by any of the above rules. All
such suits may be filed at the plaintiff option in any of the following court i.e. (i)
Where the cause of action, wholly or partly arises; or (ii) Where the defendant
resides or carries on business or personally works for gain or (iii) Where there are
two or more defendants, any of them resides or carries on business or personally
works for gain provided that in such a case either the leave of court is obtained or
the defendant who do not reside or carry on business or personally work for gain
at that place acquiesce in such institution of suit.

When Applicable

When there is a breach of contract or commercial transactions

Conditions

 If the breach of contract was done or cause of action arises within the local
limits of the jurisdiction of one court

 Defendant voluntarily resides, carries on his business or works for personal

gains  within the local limits of the jurisdiction of another court the plaintiff
has an option to file at either court
Example

C is a tradesman in Bangalore, D carries on business in Hyderabad. D, by his agent

in Bangalore, buys goods from C and requests C to deliver them to Amarchand
Company. C delivers the goods in Bangalore accordingly. C may sue for the price
of goods either in Bangalore where the cause of action arises or in Hyderabad
where D carries on his business.

Jurisdiction of Court for Contract

A suit for breach of contract can be filed at the place where the contract was
entered into. It can also be filed at the place of performance which is also part of
the cause of action. Where an ouster clause occurs, it is pertinent to see whether
there is ouster of jurisdiction of other courts.

The stipulation is that the contract shall be deemed to have been made at a
particular place. This would provide the connecting factor for jurisdiction to the
court of that place in the matter of any dispute on or arising out of that contract.
It would not, ipso facto take away the jurisdiction of other courts.

Suit between Principal and Agent

Suits in respect of accounts against an agent can be instituted where the contract
of agency was entered into or where the accounts are to be rendered and the
payment to be made by the agent. Suit by an agent against principal for recovery
of loss would lie at the place of residence of the defendant.

Suit for accounts by the principal against agent would not lie at the place where
accounts were demanded and refused.

Suit between Banker and Customer

Where is made in a Bank, the place of repayment is to be determined from the
terms of the receipt. In the absence of such terms, the money becomes payable
at the place where the Bank does its business.

In the current account, the obligation of the banker to repay arises on demand
and is limited to the office where the account is kept. The customer must make a
demand for payment at the branch where his current account is kept before he
can have a cause of action against the Bank. The rule is the same whether the
account is a current or deposit.

Suit against Corporation

As Explanation II of Section 20 of the Code “Corporation” includes not only
statutory corporation but also a company registered under Companies Act.  The
incorporation, registration and corporate office of a trading company is its
principal place of business, i.e. the place where the administrative business of the
company is conducted, which may not be the place where its manufacturing or
other business operations are carried on.

Thus, irrespective of the provisions of the Companies Act, the domicile of a

trading company will be the place of its suing. The test to be conducted before
filing a suit against a company is: Whether the company carried on business at the
place where it has been sued at the time of commencement of the suit.

Suits against Foreigners

Jurisdiction over persons and property apart from principles of International Law,
where foreign subjects are involved is governed by legislation passed in the
country where it is sought to be exercised. The code does not exempt foreigners
from the jurisdiction of Indian Courts.  As regards residence, even a temporary
residence is sufficient to give jurisdiction. foreigner carrying on business through
an agent within the jurisdiction will become amenable to the jurisdiction of the
Court.

If a cause of action against a non-resident foreigner arises within the territory

than in itself, is sufficient ground of jurisdiction. The presence of a foreign
defendant who appears under protest to contest jurisdiction cannot be
considered as conferring jurisdiction on the court to take action.
Unless a foreign defendant either resides within the jurisdiction or voluntarily
appears or has contracted to submit to the jurisdiction of the court, it is not
possible to hold that the court will have jurisdiction against a foreign defendant.

A decree passed in a suit against non-resident foreigners is not enforceable in

foreign courts.

Consent of Parties to Jurisdiction

It is a well-established principle of law that jurisdiction is conferred upon courts
by the legislatures only. The consent of parties cannot, therefore, confer
jurisdiction upon a court, when it does not possess it. This principle, however,
does not apply when the parties agree to submit to the exclusive or non-exclusive
jurisdiction of a foreign court. 

In a suit for damages against a corporation, having its branch office in a place
where the cause of action arose, the court at such place would have jurisdiction.
The parties cannot confer jurisdiction on the court where the corporation has its
registered office.

The parties can’t by agreement vest in a jurisdiction on a court that isn’t governed
as per the Code of Civil procedure. An agreement that one of the courts having
such jurisdiction alone will adjudicate the suit, isn’t contrary to public policy. It
does not contravene section 28 of the Contract Act.
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 corporation’s
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
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 corporation’s
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
Conclusion

The concept of the place of suing is very important as it helps to determine the
jurisdiction of each court. It helps to the plaintiff where to file a suit. It saves the
time of the court in determining the jurisdiction of the court.
 Bibliography

1) AIR 1969 SC 823.

2) AIR SC 2001.