Jami Hamdard

SUBJECT – CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

“JURISDICTION OF COURTS”

ABSTRACT
It is described as the power of the court to deal and settle the matters, The Indian Judiciary has invoked the ancient legal maxim ‘Ubi jus
Ibi Remedium’,which means that “where there is a right there is a remedy”. The judicial forum should have a jurisdiction to settle and deal
with the matters Thejurisdiction almost rest where the crime is committed.
Section 9  of the Code of Civil procedure deals with the jurisdiction of civil courts in India. It declares that the court shall
have jurisdiction to try all lawsuits of civil nature accepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.
MEANING
When a court of law exercises its authority over lawsuits, cases, appeals, etc., it is said to be exercising its jurisdiction. In the case of Hriday
Nath Roy vs. Ram Chandra, the Calcutta High Court issued a ruling in 1921 that attempted to define the term "jurisdiction" in full. A review
of the cases in the texts reveals several attempts to define the term "jurisdiction," which has been defined as the authority by which their
judicial powers take into account the facts and decide causes, the power to hear and decide the legal dispute, or the authority to hear and
determine the issue in contention between the parties to a lawsuit and to adjudicate or exercise any judicial authority over them, or the
capacity to hear, determine, and pass judgement on matters before the court, or the authority granted to a court by the government to
comprehend and learn the causes between the parties and to pass judgement into the effect, or the capacity to inquire into the facts,
apply the law, and render judgement and carry it out.
 Ineffective and erroneous exercise of jurisdiction
Whenever a lawsuit is filed, the first question to be resolved is whether the court has the authority to hear the case. The court has the
authority to handle any case if it has jurisdiction over the territory, the money, or the subject matter. If the court lacks any  jurisdiction, it
will be recognised as an irregular use of jurisdiction and a lack of jurisdiction. Depending on the circumstances, a decision made by a court
that lacks jurisdiction in a matter will either be deemedvoid or voidable.
 The basis to determine jurisdiction

 Jurisdiction is determined mainly on the grounds of:

1. Fiscal value;
2. Geographical boundaries of a court;
3. The subject matter of court.
So, the Court, before accepting notice of crime, need to take into consideration the following characteristics:
• The Fiscal value of the trial.
• The specialities of the case.
• The regional limits of the court.
It is appropriate for the panel to have the authority to address the subject, for the court to have local or pecuniary jurisdiction, and for the
court to have the authority to award compensation in such cases. In the case of Official Trustee v. Sachin Nath, the
court determined that in order to address the issue, the court needed to not only have exclusive jurisdictionover a certain issue but also
have the authority to determine the appropriate course of action.
 

Kinds of jurisdiction

 Territorial or local jurisdiction

The geographical boundaries of a court's jurisdictionare distinctly defined and stated under this territorial or local jurisdiction. Beyond that
territorial or geographic boundary, it is powerless. For instance, if a specific crime is committed in Madhya Pradesh, only the
courts located there can hear the case and render a decision. The territorial jurisdiction based on the location of the immovable property
is further explained in Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In  Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. D.L.F. Universal Ltd, the court construed
Section 16 to require that any lawsuit involving real estate be filed with the appropriate court. The court lacks the authority to decide on
the ownership of immobile property. If the opposing party agrees to have the case tried in this situation, the court may nevertheless grant
a relief.
 Pecuniary jurisdiction
Pecuniary denotes something "connected to money." It makes an attempt to answer the question of whether the court has the necessary
authority to hear the case of the financial worth. According to the code, analysis of the case is permitted until the court's financial
threshold is exceeded by the suit's value. The Court of Low Grade shall conduct the action, as provided in Section 15 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. The phrase alludes to the civil court's financial jurisdiction. It follows the established procedure and has no bearing on the
court's jurisdiction. In order to help the parties and avoid burdening the court at a higher level, it is important
to establish pecuniary jurisdiction. On the other hand, if the court believes the verdict to be incorrect, it must intervene.
For instance, "A" wishes to accuse "B" of breaking the agreement to get Rs. 5000 in Bombay. Original jurisdiction and a small matters court
with a limit of Rs. 50,000 are both under the Bombay High Court's purview. Therefore, a lawsuit seeking Rs 5000 ought to preferably be
handled by a small claims court. The plaintiff in Karan Singh v. Chaman Paswan filed a lawsuit in the subordinate court for Rs. 2950, but the
judge dismissed the case. Later, the High Court accepted his subsequent appeal but ordered him to pay the deficit sum. The High Court
rejected the appellant's contention that the lower court's decision would be null and void. Later, the Supreme Court upheld the High
Court's ruling that the district court's decision was valid.
 Jurisdiction as to the subject matter

 The power granted to a court to comprehend and decide matters involving a particular kind of subjectmatter can be referred to as the

subject matter. In other words, it indicates that certain courts are not permitted to hear particular types of cases. A court without subject

matter jurisdiction cannot make any decisions regarding options. Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with the phase

where jurisdiction is contested. For instance, "Ranveer," a Sonipat resident, purchased a food item from the "AA" brand that was tainted

with vermin. Instead of the District Civil Court of Sonipat, he ought to file a lawsuit against the "ZZ" corporation.
 Original and appellate jurisdiction
The term "appellate jurisdiction" describes the court's power to revisit or rehear cases that have already been  determined by subordinate
courts. Both the High Court and the Supreme Court have the appellate jurisdiction in Indian conditions to hear cases that are brought as
appeals.
Original Jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear cases that might be resolved in these courts in the initial instance. Here, matters are
tried from scratch, in contrast to appellate jurisdiction when courts examine already resolved decisions.
  Exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction
 Exclusive jurisdiction in civil procedure refers to a situation where a single court has the power to decide a case against the will of all other
courts. The subject matter that a particular court deals with determinesthis jurisdiction. For instance, the U.S. District courts have
special jurisdiction over issues related to insolvency.
When two or more courts from various legal systems simultaneously hold jurisdiction over a specific case, this is known as
concurrent jurisdiction. Parties will attempt to have their civil or criminal case heard in the court they believe will be most favourable to
them in this scenario.
  General and special jurisdiction
 General courts have broad jurisdiction, which means they can hear a variety of cases. A court can hear any kind of matter if it has this type
of jurisdiction. As a result, the court with universal jurisdiction can hear cases involving the criminal, civil, family, and other courts.
When a defendant has few contacts in the state where the lawsuit will be tried, the court may hear the case in a state other than the
defendant's home state. This is known as specific jurisdiction.
 Legal and equitable jurisdiction
 The authority of the courts has equitable jurisdictionto take particular acts and issue certain decisions in order to produce an
equitable and reasonable result. These rulings are typically not subject to the rule of law because the legal authority cited by the courts
may not always be supported by the law. The Supreme Court of India ruled in the case of  K.K. Velusamy v. N.Palanisamy that Section 151
does not grant civil courts any particular jurisdiction but simply allows for the application of discretionary power to further the interests of
justice.
This argues that in order to attain the goals of justice, the court cannot make any order that could be refused under any law or forbidden
under any law. This would imply that the power of the courts to apply the law is superseded by their equitablejurisdiction.
 
Suits of civil nature: illustrations- the following are suits of a civil nature.

 suits relating to rights to property;

 suits relating to rights of worship;
 suits relating to taking out of religious procession;
 suits relating to right to share in offerings;
 suits for damages for civil wrongs;
 suits for specific performance of contracts or for damages for breach of contracts;
 suits for specific relief’s;
 suits for restitution of conjugal rights;
 suits for dissolution of marriages;
  suits for rent;
 suits for or on account;
 suits for rights of franchise;
 suits for rights to hereditary offices;
 .suits for rights to Yajmanvritis;
 suits against wrongful dismissal from service and for salaries, etc.
suits not of civil nature- illustrations- the following are not

 suits of a civil nature:

 suits involving principally caste questions;
 suits involving purely religious rites or ceremonies;
 suits for upholding mere dignity or honor;
 suits for recovery of voluntary payments or offerings;
 suits against expulsions from caste, etc.
CONCLUSION
To elaborate on jurisdiction is to define, clarify, and explain it. To develop, extend, or extend jurisdictionis to grow jurisdiction. It is the
court's responsibility to define its jurisdiction, and it is improper for the court to broaden it.
Civil court has jurisdiction to investigate whether tribunal and quasi-judicial bodies or legal executive acted within their  jurisdiction. It can
be presumed that section 9 essentially deals with the issue of the civil court’s jurisdiction to consider a matter. Civil court
has jurisdiction to consider a suit of civil nature except when its notification is expressly barred or bared by significant suggestion. Civil
court has jurisdiction to resolve the problem of its jurisdiction.
 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

“Google” (Google) <https://www.google.com> accessed November 11, 2022

SUBMITTING TO: PROFESSOR ADVOCATE MOHD YASIN 

NAME – siddhant sharma
SECTION – B
ENROLLMENT NO. - 2019-342-104