Section 21 and Section 21A

Lesson Number 11
FOR JUDICIARY
Pricing Plan - Plus Subscription

1 month 3 months 6 months

Rs. 5,750/month Rs. 4,792/month Rs. 3,833/month

Rs. 14,375 for Rs. 23,000 for 6

3 months months

12 months 18 months 24 months

Rs. 2,635/month Rs. 2,156/month Rs. 1,917/month

Rs. 31,625 for 12 Rs. 38,813 for Rs. 46,000 for

months 18 months 24 months

Use Code ARCHNA for 10% off

 Section 21
Objections to jurisdiction.—[(1)] No objection as to the place of suing
shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such
objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest
possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled at or
before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent
failure of justice.
(2) No objection as to the competence of a Court with reference to
the pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction shall be allowed by any
Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the
Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity, and, in all
cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, and
unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.
(3) No objection as to the competence of the executing Court with
reference to the local limits of its jurisdiction shall be allowed by any
Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the
executing Court at the earliest possible opportunity, and unless
there has been a consequent failure of justice.
 Objections as to Jurisdiction
• It is a fundamental rule that a decree of a
court without jurisdiction is a nullity. Halsbury
states;
• “where by reason of any limitation imposed
by statute, charter or commission, a court is
without jurisdiction to entertain any particular
action or matter, neither the acquiesce nor
the express consent of the parties can confer
jurisdiction upon the court nor can consent
give a court jurisdiction if a condition which
goes to the root of the jurisdiction has not
been performed or fulfilled.”
But, this does not apply to territorial or pecuniary
jurisdiction. If an error is committed by the
court in exercising the jurisdiction with respect
to pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction, the
decision so given will not be void, it will be
considered as irregular exercise of jurisdiction.
No doubt, party has a right to raise the issue
but at the earliest possible time and once the
court proceeded with the matter and given the
decision the same cannot be raised at the
appellate stage at all as observed in the case
of Kiran Singh V. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC
340 and Hira Lal v. Kali Nath, AIR 1962 SC 199
 Object
• The object of this section is to protect
honest litigants and to avoid harassment
to plaintiffs who have in good faith started
the proceedings in a court. And this was
found as lack in jurisdiction.
• If a person is dishonest litigant, he cannot
take advantage of this provision.
 Objection to Territorial Jurisdiction

• Competence of a court to try a case

stands on the very root of the jurisdiction
and where it lacks, it is case of inherent
lack of jurisdiction.
• While, on the other hand, objection related
to local jurisdiction of a court can be given
up and this principle is recognized under
section 21.
 Case Law
Hira Lal v. Kali Nath (1962)
• In this case, suit ought to have been filed n
court of Agra but was filed in Bombay
High Court with the leave of the Court.
• It was held that objection to such
jurisdiction falls within section 21.
Conditions as to Objections related
to Place of Suing
1. The objection was taken in the court of first case in
point;
2. Taken as the earliest possible opportunity and
where issues are settled at or before settlement of
issues;
3. Consequent failure of justice
The reason is simple that neither consent nor waiver
nor agreement can grant the jurisdiction upon a
court which is incompetent to try a suit.
Competence of a court to try a case is the very root of
jurisdiction and when it lacks, it is a case of inherent
lack of jurisdiction.
 Thus,
• If the defendant allows the trial court to
proceed to decide the matter without raising an
objection as to place of suing and takes the
chance of a verdict in his favor.
• It means, he is clearly giving up the objection.
• So, he will not be permitted to raise it
subsequently.
• It can be said that the long and continued
participation by the defendant in the
proceedings without any objection may, in a
relevant case, equal to a waiver of an objection.
s
 Case Law
• Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan (1954); The
Policy of Section 21 has been explained by
the Supreme Court, “when a case had been
tried by a court on the merits and judgment
rendered, it should not be liable to be
reversed purely on technical grounds, unless
it had resulted in failure of justice, and the
policy of the legislature has been to treat
objections to both territorial and pecuniary
jurisdictions as technical and not open to
consideration by an appellate court, unless
there has been a prejudice on merits.”
 Important Point
• If the trial court has not adjudicated the
suit on merits, this section does not
prevent objections as to the place of suing
which is taken to appellate or revisional
court.
 Objection
1. As to Pecuniary Jurisdiction: it is the plaintiff’s valuation in the
plaint which decides the jurisdiction and not the decree
passed by the court. However, if the defendant disputes the
valuation by plaintiff, duty arises on the part of trial court to
inquire and pass an appropriate order. Although, the objection
related to overvaluation and undervaluation will be will be
allowed by appellate or revisional court after three conditions
as mentioned earlier are satisfied. It is to be noted that all
these three conditions must coexist.
2. As to Subject Matter of Jurisdiction: if the court does not
possess the jurisdiction as related to subject matter, a
judgment given, order made or decree passed is totally null
and void. This decree can be set aside in appeal, review or
revision. Moreover, its validity can be challenged even in
collateral proceedings.
3. As to Execution Proceedings: Section 21 (3) states that this
section also applies to execution proceedings.
 Execution Proceedings
• After Amendment Act, 1976, an express
provision has been made which provides
that an objection as to territorial
jurisdiction of a court executing should
not be allowed if the condition laid down
therein are fulfilled.
 Section 21A
[21A. Bar on suit to set aside decree on objection as
to place of suing.— No suit shall lie challenging
the validity of a decree passed in a former suit
between the same parties, or between the parties
under whom they or any of them claim, litigating
under the same title, on any ground based on an
objection as to the place of suing.
Explanation.—The expression “former suit” means a
suit which has been decided prior to the decision
in the suit in which the validity of the decree is
questioned, whether or not the previously decided
suit was instituted prior to the suit in which the
validity of such decree is questioned.]
 Bar of Suit
Section 21A
• This section specifically provides that no
substantive suit can be filed to set aside a
decree passed by a court on an objection as
to the place of suing.
• This deals only with place of suing or
territorial limits and does not deal with
pecuniary limits or defects.
• Thus, the principle applicable to territorial
defects will also apply to pecuniary defects
as well.
 To conclude;
1. Every suit shall be instituted in the court of lowest grade
competent to try it.
2. But, the court of higher jurisdiction is not deprived of
jurisdiction to try such suit.
3. A suit if properly instituted, the court has power to pass a
decree exceeding its pecuniary jurisdiction.
4. Suits related to immovable property should be instituted where
the immovable property is situated.
5. Suits related to movable property or wrong person may be
instituted where such wrong is committed or where the
defendant resides, carries on work or works for gain.
6. In case of other suits, suits can be instituted, (a) where the
cause of action, wholly or partly arises; or (b) where the
defendant resides, carries on business or works for gain; or (c)
where there are two or more defendants and some of them
reside outside the jurisdiction of the court, carries on business
or works for gain, a suit may be instituted at the place where
one of them resides, carries on business or personally works
for gain, provided that the leave of the court is obtained.
 To conclude;
7. Consent can neither give nor take away jurisdiction of a
competent court;
8. When two or more courts have jurisdiction to entertain
a suit, and the parties agree to submit to jurisdiction of
one of such courts, the agreement is legal, valid, binding
and enforceable;
9. No objection as to territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction
can be entertained by appellate or revisional unless (a)
such objection has been taken at the earliest possible
opportunity; and (b) there has been a consequent failure
of justice. This also applies in case of executing court.
10. No suit would lie to set aside a decree on the objection
as to terrritorial or pecuniary jurisdiction of a court.
THANK YOU