UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

PANJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH

CPC PROJECT:

JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURTS

SUBMITTED TO: DR. KARAN JAWANDA

SUBMITTED BY: DHAARNA CHOUDHRY

CLASS: B.A. LLB. (HONS)

SEMESTER: 7th

SECTION: A

ROLL NO. : 10/19

1|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my special thanks and gratitude to my Professor “Dr.

Dr. Karan Jawanda” for their able guidance and support in helping me
complete my project.

I would also like to express my gratitude to the Director of UILS “Rajinder

Kaur Ma’am” for providing me with all the facility that was required

2|Page
 INDEX

Topic Page No.

List of Cases 4
Introduction 5
Meaning of Jurisdiction 5-6
Hierarchy of Civil Courts in India 7
Kinds of Jurisdiction of Civil Courts 8
Lack of jurisdiction and Irregular exercise of jurisdiction 9-10
Determining Factor of Jurisdiction 10-11
Presumption as to Jurisdiction 11
The burden of proof 11
Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code 11-13
Objections to Jurisdiction 13
Bibliography 14

3|Page
 LIST OF CASES

Sr. No. Name of cases Page No.

1. Kallu Khan v. Kamarulnish 1962 ALJ 1039, 1056 (FB) 5
2. Hriday Nath Roy v. Akhil Chandra Roy AIR 1929 Cal 445 6
3. Official Trustee v. Sachindra Nath 1969 AIR 823 6
4. A.R Antulay v. R.S Nayak AIR 1988 SC 1531 6
5. Anisminic Ltd v. Foreign Compensation Commission (1969) 9
2 AC 147
6. Kehar Singh Nihal Singh v. Custodian General AIR 1959 P 12
H 58
7. Raja Ram Kumar Bhargava v. Union of India 1973 92 ITR 12
312 Delhi
8. Shankar Narayanan Potti vs K. Sreedevi 26 March, 1998 13
9. Shri Panch Nagar Park vs Purushottam Das 18 August, 1999 13

4|Page
 JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURTS

Introduction

Jurisdiction is a key component in determining whether or not the court has the power to
adjudicate the case. Without a clear understanding of the jurisdiction, one cannot proceed
with a case. Unless and until it is determined that the court has the power and authority to
adjudicate the matter, the case cannot move forward. The power to create or enlarge
jurisdiction is legislative in character and legislature can alone do it by law.

Meaning of Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction has not been defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Jurisdiction is derived
from the Latin terms "juris" and "dicto" which means "I speak the law". Jurisdiction means
the power or authority of a court of law to adjudicate and determine a civil matter. It is the
power of the court to entertain suits, appeals and applications and decide it on merit.
Jurisdiction determines the competency of the court to try the matter. Thus, it is the authority
of a court to take cognizance, inquire in to the facts, apply the law to the facts and
circumstances of the case, and pronounce the judgment according to the statutory provisions
of subject matter, pecuniary value and territorial limits.

Black‟s Law Dictionary defines jurisdiction as “A courts power to decide a case or issue a
decree.”

In Kallu Khan v. Kamarulnish1 jurisdiction has been defined as the authority by which a court
decides matters that are litigated before it or to take cognizance of matters presented in a
formal way for its decision. It is the power to hear and determine issues of law and fact, the
authority by which the judicial officers take cognizance of and decide a legal controversy, the
power to hear and determine the subject-matter in controversy between parties to a suit and to
adjudicate or exercise any judicial power over them; the power to hear, determine and
pronounce judgment on the issues before the court; the power or authority which is conferred
upon a court by the Legislature to hear and determine causes between parties and to carry the
judgments into effect, to apply the law, to pronounce the judgment and carry into execution.

1
Kallu Khan v. Kamarulnish 1962 ALJ 1039, 1056 (FB)

5|Page
In the year 1928, the Calcutta High Court attempted to explain the meaning of the term
jurisdiction in the case of Hriday Nath Roy v. Akhil Chandra Roy2, the court stated
jurisdiction as:

 the power to hear and adjudicate the issues of law and facts or
 the Power by which the judges take the cognizance of facts which are given or
 the power to listen and adjudicate any legal controversies or
 the Power to listen and take the subject matter in issue between the parties and also to
adjudicate or
 the power to affirm the judgment on the issues of facts and law laid before the court or
 the power to go through the facts, to apply the law, to ordain the judgment, and to execute
the same which is conferred by the legislature upon Court

In the case of Official Trustee v. Sachindra Nath3, the Supreme Court observed that before a
court can be held to have the jurisdiction to decide a particular matter, it must not only have
jurisdiction to try the suit brought before it, but must also have the authority to pass the order
sought for. It is inadequate that it has some jurisdiction in reference to the subject matter of
the suit. Its jurisdiction must include the power to hear and decide the questions at issue, the
authority to hear and decide the particular controversy that has a relation between the parties.

In the case of A.R Antulay v. R.S Nayak4, it was held that the power to create or enlarge
jurisdiction is legislative in character, so also the power to confer a right of appeal or to take
away a right of appeal. Parliament alone can do it by law. No court, whether superior or
inferior or both combined can enlarge the jurisdiction of the court or divest a person of his
rights of revision and appeal.

A civil court has inherent power to decide its own jurisdiction, though it may rule that it has
no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Thus, it is for a civil court to decide whether it is barred
from taking cognizance over a particular type of civil suit, either expressively or impliedly.

2
Hriday Nath Roy v. Akhil Chandra Roy AIR 1929 Cal 445
3
Official Trustee v. Sachindra Nath 1969 AIR 823
4
A.R Antulay v. R.S Nayak AIR 1988 SC 1531

6|Page
Hierarchy of Civil courts in India

Hierarchy of courts and their jurisdiction are significant to deal with the disputes which arise
every day in a big country like India. The Supreme Court of India deals with the cases at the
National level, the High Court deals with cases at the State level and Subordinate courts
(Civil and Criminal) deals with the cases at the District and Subordinate level.

The hierarchy of the civil courts in India and its names differs in different states. And this
hierarchy of the courts in every state is subsidiary to its specific high courts to control and
regulate the civil matters. These civil courts are allocated to a distinct territory in a city or a
town of the State.

SUPREME
COURT

HIGH
COURT
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
COURT
COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE
(SENIOR DIVISION)
CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR
DIVISION)

MUNSIF'S COURT AND SMALL

CAUSES COURT

7|Page
Kinds of Jurisdiction of Civil Courts

Civil courts have three types of jurisdiction:

1) Subject Matter Jurisdiction

2) Territorial Jurisdiction
3) Pecuniary Jurisdiction

Subject Matter Jurisdiction - Subject matter implies the main or the fundamental matter of
a particular nature which is under question in the case. Subject matter jurisdiction essentially
states whether the court has the authority to try the subject matter in question. It primarily
specifies whether the courts are allowed to try matters of a certain nature. If not, then the
courts cannot try that particular case. Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure is related to
the stage challenging the jurisdiction. For Example, Ayesha, a resident of Ambala bought a
food item of some brand that was plagued with pests. She should prosecute the concerned
company in Ambala District forum rather than District Civil Court of Ambala.

Territorial Jurisdiction - Under this territorial jurisdiction, the geographical limits of a

court‟s authority are clearly specified. It cannot exercise authority beyond that geographical/
territorial limit. The geographical boundaries are clearly demarcated in the case of such a
jurisdiction. For example, if a certain crime is committed in Andhra Pradesh, only the courts
of law within the borders of Andhra Pradesh can hear and decide the case. Section 16 to
Section 20 of the CPC talks about the Territorial jurisdiction civil courts.

Pecuniary Jurisdiction - Pecuniary means „related to capital.‟ This jurisdiction takes the
monetary value of the case or suit into consideration. Only if the court has the authority in
terms of the suit‟s financial value to try the suit, the suit would be instituted in that court. It
states every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it.
Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with pecuniary jurisdiction of civil court. The
main objective of establishing pecuniary jurisdiction is to prevent the court of a higher level
from getting burdened and to provide assistance to the parties. However, the court shall
interfere if it finds the judgment to be wrong.

8|Page
Lack of jurisdiction and Irregular exercise of jurisdiction

If a court decides a case wrongly, the wronged party can only take the course prescribed by
law which is an appeal or a revision or review. However if no appeal or revision is filed
within the prescribed period, the erroneous decision cannot be disturbed thereafter. In other
words, if there is inherent lack of jurisdiction, the decree passed by a civil court is a nullity.
But if the court has jurisdiction but it has exercised it irregularly, the defect and the error if
any, in exercising the jurisdiction can be remedied in appeal or revision and when there is no
such remedy or is not availed of, the decision is final.

In a decision by a civil court where the subject matter is outside its purview either due to an
explicit or implied bar in a statute or a principle of law, it amounts to lack of jurisdiction.

Irregular exercise of jurisdiction occurs when the court by rendering an erroneous decision,
fails to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. However irregular jurisdiction always does not
result in nullity of the decree.

The distinction between absence of jurisdiction and erroneous jurisdiction or irregular

exercise thereof has been given in the landmark decision in Anisminic Ltd v. Foreign
Compensation Commission5 – it was held that: "the distinction between jurisdictional and
non-jurisdictional error is ultimately based on a foundation of sand. Much of the
superstructure has already crumbled. What remains is likely to fall away quickly as the courts
rightly insist that all administrative actions should be simply lawful whether or not
jurisdictionally lawful.”

5
Anisminic Ltd v. Foreign Compensation Commission (1969) 2 AC 147

9|Page
 Lack of jurisdiction v. Irregular exercise of jurisdiction

Lack of jurisdiction Irregular exercise of

 When a court does not have
jurisdiction to decide a matter in the
first place, it is lack of jurisdiction.
 There is no jurisdiction at all.
 The decision given in lack of
jurisdiction can be declared null.
 There cannot be any appeal or
revision of such judgement.
jurisdiction
 When the court having jurisdiction
exercises its power wrongly, it is an
irregular exercise of jurisdiction.
 The court has jurisdiction to decide
the matter but it merely exercises its
power irregularly.
 The judgement pronounced by the
irregular exercise of jurisdiction is not
null because the power to decide
includes the power to decide rightly
as well as wrongly.
 The wrongly decided judgement can
be appealed for or can be corrected
during revision.

Determining Factor of Jurisdiction

 The declarations made in the plaint by the plaintiff are used to determine the
jurisdiction of the court.
 So, plaintiff's contentions are that, that decide the jurisdiction of the court and not
defendants contentions made in the written statement.
 Such facts in the plaint that decide jurisdiction of a court are known as jurisdictional
facts.
 Whether such facts in the plaint are true or not would not affect the jurisdiction of the
court as jurisdiction is dependent upon initial assumption by the court that facts stated
in the plaint are true.
 If they actually are true or not would be determined only after the completion of
proceedings. So it can therefore not determine the jurisdiction which has to be decided
in the first place to start with the proceedings.

10 | P a g e
  Whether a civil court has jurisdiction over a matter or not will basically be decided by
that civil court itself only. It has inherent power to decide on the question of its
jurisdiction.
 However, if any statute expressly negates its jurisdiction over some specific matter,
then the statute will prevail and the court if in contravention of that statute confers
jurisdiction on that matter to itself, such usurpation of jurisdiction can be challenged
through certiorari.

Presumption as to jurisdiction

If the question as to whether the court has jurisdiction over a matter or not cannot be
conclusively determined by any means then it will be presumed that it has jurisdiction over it.

The burden of proof

If one of the concerned party contends that the court trying the suit does not have jurisdiction
to entertain that matter, the burden of proof primarily would lie upon the party who contends
that such civil court does not have jurisdiction over that matter.

Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code

Section 9 of the CPC states that a court has the jurisdiction to try all suits of a “civil nature”
except suits on which their cognizance is either “expressly and impliedly barred”. This
implies that unless the suit is of civil nature and the cognizance of which is neither expressly
nor impliedly barred, a civil court may not have the jurisdiction to try it.

Conditions

A Civil court has jurisdiction to decide a suit if two requirements are fulfilled:

1. The suit must be of a civil nature.

2. The cognizance of such a suit should not have been expressly or impliedly barred.

The suit must be of a civil nature:

„Civil Suit‟ has not been explained in any act. Any suit that is not criminal in nature can be
termed as a suit of a civil nature. Any suit that pertains to determination and implementation
of civil rights may be defined as a civil suit. A suit of civil nature may be one that is

11 | P a g e
concerned with private rights and obligations. For example, suit for dissolution of marriage,
suit for rent, etc.

The political and religious question is not covered by a suit of a civil nature. A suit in which
principal question is related to caste or religion is not of a suit of a civil nature. But if the
main question in a suit of civil nature involves the decision relating to caste question or to
religious rites and ceremonies it does not terminate to be a suit of a civil nature. The court has
jurisdiction to decide those questions also, in order to decide the important question which is
of civil nature.

In the case of Kehar Singh Nihal Singh v. Custodian General6, the court elaborated the
concept of civil proceeding. It was defined as a grant of private rights to individuals or
corporations of society. The objective of the action is the reward or recovery of private rights.
In other words, the civil action may be described as the proceeding between two parties for
implementation or redressal of private rights.

The cognizance of such a suit should not have been expressly or impliedly barred:

When a suit is barred by an enactment for the time being in force, it is said to be expressly
barred. For instance, if the Parliament passes an Act and expressly bars certain courts from
dealing with the matter, then those courts would not have the jurisdiction to deal with suits
with respect to that particular matter.

Impliedly barred basically refers to when a law suit is barred by general principles of law.
This enumerates upon a very valid point that when a statute provides for specific remedy, one
cannot insist for a remedy other than that provided in the statute.

In Raja Ram Kumar Bhargava v. Union of India7, the Supreme Court set down certain
important considerations for the determination of implied exclusion of Civil Court‟s
jurisdiction. They are:

a) Whether a right, not pre-existing in common law has been created by a statute.
b) That statute itself provided machinery for enforcement of that right.
c) Finality is intended to be the result of the statutory proceedings.

6
Kehar Singh Nihal Singh v. Custodian General AIR 1959 P H 58
7
Raja Ram Kumar Bhargava v. Union of India 1973 92 ITR 312 Delhi

12 | P a g e
Unless the relevant statute entails a provision expressly or indicates to an inevitable/necessary
implication stating the jurisdiction of the civil courts is excluded to try the immediate case,
exclusion of the jurisdiction of civil courts will not be assumed. The general rule states the
presumption would be made in favour of the existence of a right to sue in a civil court,
whereas exclusion of the same would be considered an exception. If at all there are doubts
regarding the ousting of the jurisdiction of a civil court, the court shall make an interpretation
that would maintain the jurisdiction.

In the case of Shankar Narayanan Potti vs K. Sreedevi8, the Supreme Court held that the
„Civil Court has primary jurisdiction in all types of civil matters as per Section 9 of CPC
unless the action is expressly or impliedly barred.” This means that Legislature can defeat the
jurisdiction of the civil court by adding a provision or clause in any Act itself.

In the case of Shri Panch Nagar Park vs Purushottam Das9 it was held that if there are no
specific terms in any statute the court needs to look into design, plan and suitable provisions
of the Act in order to find implied dismissal of the jurisdiction of a civil court.

Objections to Jurisdiction

It is a cardinal principle of civil law that all suits have to be instituted at the court of lowest
grade competent to try it. Subject to this, all suits in respect to immovable property must be
instituted at the court where the property is situated. In case of suit where relief is claimed
against any person, must be instituted in the court within the local limits of which the person
resides, or carries on business or works for gain.

Section 21 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 specifies that all objections to the jurisdiction
of court have to be field in the trial court at the earliest possible opportunity. Sub Section (1)
and (2) of Section 21 deal with the territorial and pecuniary jurisdictions of civil courts,
respectively. No appellate or revision court would entertain any objection to the jurisdiction,
unless the objection is filed: In the court of the first instance; at the earliest possible time. In
any case, the objection has to be filed before settlement of issue.

The appellate court may entertain objection only when serious prejudice happened due to
wrong jurisdiction. It is expressly provided that in case no objection is raised at the earliest
possible opportunity, the objection is deemed to have been waived.

8
Shankar Narayanan Potti vs K. Sreedevi 26 March, 1998
9
Shri Panch Nagar Park vs Purushottam Das 18 August, 1999

13 | P a g e
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1) https://www.lawnn.com/jurisdiction-of-civil-courts/
2) https://www.lawinsider.in/columns/jurisdiction-of-civil-courts#post-28085-endnote-ref-1
3) https://lawcorner.in/jurisdiction-of-civil-courts-in-india/
4) https://blog.ipleaders.in/jurisdiction-of-civil-courts-
2/#Lack_of_jurisdiction_and_irregular_exercise_of_jurisdiction
5) https://singhania.in/blog/determining-jurisdiction-in-india
6) http://law-projects.blogspot.com/2015/02/jurisdiction-lack-of-jurisdiction-and.html
7) https://www.slideshare.net/DrVikasKhakare/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-jurisdiction-
of-civil-courts
8) https://blog.ipleaders.in/jurisdiction-of-civil-courts-2/#Section_9_of_CPC
9) https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/objection-to-the-jurisdiction-of-civil-court-
6935.asp
10) https://www.latestlaws.com/bare-acts/central-acts-rules/cpc-section-21-objections-to-
jurisdiction-

14 | P a g e