CPC NOTES

INTRODUCTION NOTES
 The main aim of the CPC is to facilitate justice, it has been rightly observed that
procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid of Justice.
 The Code of Civil Procedure is a procedural law and deals with the administration of civil
proceedings in India. Once the proceedings are initiated under it, rights and remedies of
the parties will be governed by the Code.
 The Civil Procedure Code regulates every action in civil courts and the parties before it
till the execution of the decree and order. The Aim of the Procedural law is to implement
the principles of Substantive law.

DECREE
A decree is a formal expression of an adjudication by a court of law, which conclusively
determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in
the suit. A decree can be either preliminary or final, or partly preliminary and partly final. A
preliminary decree is one that does not completely dispose of the suit, but leaves some
matters to be decided later. A final decree is one that completely disposes of the suit. A
partly preliminary and partly final decree is one that contains both preliminary and final
aspects.
Some of the case laws on decree are:
 In Madan Naik v. Hansubala Devi, the Supreme Court held that if the matter is not
judicially determined, it is not a decree. Therefore, an order of dismissal for default or an
order of an administrative nature is not a decree.
 In Deep Chand v. Land Acquisition Officer, the Supreme Court held that the adjudication
must be made by an officer of the court, and not by a person who is not a court.
Therefore, an award made by a land acquisition officer is not a decree.
 In Rameshwar Prasad v. Shambehari Lal, the Supreme Court held that a decree must
determine the rights of the parties in relation to the matters in dispute. Therefore, a
mere declaration of status or right without affecting the legal relationship of the parties
is not a decree.
 In K. Venkataramiah v. A. Seetharama Reddy, the Supreme Court held that a decree
must be a formal expression of the adjudication. Therefore, a mere oral pronouncement
of the judgment without a written decree is not a decree.

S.7 Pecuniary Jurisdiction

Pecuniary jurisdiction is the term used to describe the monetary limit up to which a court
can entertain a suit. It means that a court can only hear and decide cases that involve a
certain amount of money or value of property. The pecuniary jurisdiction of courts is
determined by the nature of the suit and the court where the suit is filed. For example, in
India, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is unlimited, whereas the High Courts
and the District Courts have different pecuniary limits depending on the state laws and
rules.

S.8 Provincial Small Causes Court

A Provincial Small Causes Court is a type of civil court that deals with cases involving small
amounts of money or property.
The pecuniary jurisdiction of these courts is determined by the state governments, subject
to a maximum limit of Rs. 25,000.
The suits before these courts are tried in a summary manner, without any formal pleadings
or evidence. The registrar may also try some suits with the consent of the parties.
The decrees and orders of these courts are final and conclusive, and no appeal lies against
them. However, a revision may be filed before the High Court on a question of law or
jurisdiction.

SUIT
 A suit is a civil proceeding instituted by the presentation of a plaint in a court of law.
 A plaint is a written statement of the facts and the relief claimed by the plaintiff.
 According to Section 26 of the CPC, every suit must be instituted by the presentation of
a plaint or in such other manner as may be prescribed by any law for the time being in
force.
 The plaint must comply with the rules laid down in Orders VI and VII of the CPC, which
deal with the form and particulars of the plaint, such as the name and description of the
parties, the cause of action, the jurisdiction of the court, the relief sought, etc.
 A suit must also be of a civil nature, which means that it must relate to the enforcement
or protection of civil rights or liabilities, such as property, contract, tort, etc. The CPC
does not apply to suits that are expressly or impliedly barred by any law. For example,
suits relating to criminal matters, matrimonial disputes, revenue matters, etc. are
governed by other specific laws and procedures.

S.9 Courts to try all civil suits unless barred

The principle of courts to try all civil suits unless barred implies that civil courts have a wide
and general jurisdiction to entertain any civil suit, unless there is a clear and express
provision in any statute that bars their jurisdiction. Such a provision may either state that a
particular category of cases is not within the cognizance of civil courts or create a special
tribunal or forum for the resolution of such cases. For example, the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, bars the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters relating to industrial disputes and
provides for the establishment of labour courts and industrial tribunals for the same.
There are certain suits of civil nature, but barred due it is public policy.
No suit shall lie against the judge while he is in his office.
It is well settled that civil court has inherent power to decide jurisdiction.
Bhatia Corporative housing society v D C Patil 1953 SC: The presumption is that the court
has jurisdiction.
Dhulli Bhai vs State of MP 1963 SC (there are points a to d in this case – read): Principles of
exclusive jurisdiction were summarised here.
There are 2 explanations in s.9 (in the bare act); Whether substance depend on the criminal
or civil nature.
Automobile v shantaram case – jurisdiction of civil court with industrial dispute.
JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURTS is the issue here.
Most metropolitan v Moran Mar Marthoma AIR 1995 SC - here it discusses the concept of
civil courts. s.9 explanation: when there is a right, there is a remedy; Suits of civil nature -
religious rights, caste rights, etc. (Tulsidas was banned from the Brahim community after the
Ramayana, now it cannot happen)
Broadly summarise jurisdiction -
1. Civil court has jurisdiction to try all civil suit unless barred expressly or impedily
2. Consent can be conferred or take away the jurisdiction - if parties have agreed to other
jurisdiction, that’s doesn’t mean a court is losing jurisdiction.
3. Decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is nullity.
4. There is a distinction between want of jurisdiction and irregular exercise of jurisdiction.
5. Every court has inherent power to decide the question of its jurisdiction.
6. Jurisdiction of a court depends on the plaint (plaint determines the jurisdiction).
Approach under s.32 and 226 for violation of art.3
7. For deciding the jurisdiction of a court substance not the form is the matter.
8. Every presumption must be made in the favour in the jurisdiction (that the court in
question has jurisdiction)
9. Statue on the jurisdiction of the court has to the strictly constructed.
10. Burden of proof on the jurisdiction is on the party that claims it (on the defendant) -
because there is a presumption that there is a jurisdiction.
11. Even when the jurisdiction of the court is barred, it can still decide whether the provision
of the act is complied. DEHORS (French word meaning ultra vires)

S.10 Stay of Suit (sub judice)

Stay of Suit means a legal principle that states that civil courts cannot proceed with the trial
of any suit if the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously
instituted suit between the same parties or their representatives, where such suit is pending
in the same or any other court in India or abroad having jurisdiction to grant the relief
claimed, or before the Supreme Court. The purpose of this principle is to avoid multiplicity
of suits, conflicting judgments, and abuse of process of law. It is based on the doctrine of res
sub judice, which means “under judgment” in Latin.
 The parties must be same.
 In Radhika Konel Parekh v. Konel Parekh, the Madras High Court held that the
subsequent suit should be stayed if the two suits are between the same parties, involve
the same subject matter, and raise the same questions.
 In Ramesh B. Desai v. Bipin Vadilal Mehta, the Supreme Court held that the pendency of
a suit in a foreign court does not preclude the courts in India from trying a suit founded
on the same cause of action, unless there is a bar under any law or treaty.
Same set of parties not in the same matter/over the same cause of action to be litigated. (It
is within one time, not while the other case is going on). The suit is instituted, but not
decided yet. They will dispose the matter.
Here if the issue is on jurisdiction, the defendant should argue that the court is not
appropriate and then go to that second court.
This is a mandatory power, not discretionary. It is a binding principle.
Subject matter should be essentially same, if it is only some common points, then s.10 will
not apply.
Indian bank vs Maharashtra state cooperative marketing federation 1990: if it turns out that
there are 2 suits, that is overlap, some points of difference, not identical, so under this
circumstance, in this case, court can pass an order consolidating the two suit.
Ganga Prasad v Banaspati 1937 Nagpur High Court case – if the party does not object, the
trial in the second court. A decree is not nullity, and it can be executed.

S.11 Res Judicata

It is a principle that prevents a court from re-litigating a matter that has already been
decided by a competent court between the same parties and under the same title. It is
based on the idea that there should be finality, certainty, and consistency in judicial
decisions, and that multiple suits on the same matter should be avoided.
There are some essential conditions for the application of the doctrine of res judicata, which
are: (these conditions are important, recited indirectly in class)
 The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must be the same as
in the former suit. (decided upon final)
 The former suit must have been decided by a court competent to try the subsequent
suit.
 The parties to the subsequent suit must be the same as, or must claim under, the parties
to the former suit. (same parties or any representative, if the parties are not same there
is no res judicata. Res Judicata between co-defendants: A sue B and C. Now a suit comes
between B and C, still res judicata will apply)
 The parties must have litigated under the same title in the former suit.
 The court must have decided the former suit on merits.
 The decision in the former suit must be final. (The question between the parties must be
finally decided).
There are also some exceptions to the doctrine of res judicata, which are:
 Res judicata does not apply to a pure question of law that has not been decided by a
competent court.
 Res judicata does not apply to a matter in which there is a change of law or fresh
evidence after the former suit.
 Res judicata does not apply to a matter that is not in issue in the former suit, but is only
collaterally or incidentally in question.
 Res judicata does not apply to a matter that is expressly or impliedly reserved for future
litigation by the parties.
 Res judicata does not apply to a matter that is of a public or general interest and
requires a judicial declaration. (Locus standi for public or general interest cases is lower)
This does not include appeal. This applies to court all over the country, you cannot file a suit
again in any court. A change in law does not apply retrospectively, if it is applying
retrospectively then the subject matter is changed.
Satyadhyan Ghoshal vs Duorojin Devi 1960 SC = Explains what res judicata is.
An order or decree of a court is final.
Stare Decisis (precedents binding on lower courts) and Res Judice (once an appeal option is
exhausted or tried already, the matter cannot be reopened).
The test here is ‘directly and substantially’ identical – Res Judicata will apply.
The second court has to decide whether the Res Judicata will apply or not, the basis on
which it decides is on the plaint.
Public interest, litigation has to come to an end at some point. There needs to be a finality.
Party should not be harassed – objective of Res Judicata.
Applies to future heir also.
Daryo vs State of UP 1961 SC: He had filed a writ petition, it was dismissed. It can be
appealed as SLP. Instead he filed another writ in SC under art.32. Respondent said this is res
judicata because decision of Allahabad HC is final. He could have gone through art.136, he
didn’t. he cannot reopen the matter. Held as barred by Res Judicate.
Devadas and darmadas case
How do you decide if the matter is in issue? (res judicata only applies if the matter in issue is
same). It can be issue of law, or fact, or a mix of both. It can be a question of fact or law.
Identifying what is “substantial” and “directly” in issue – for it be under res judicata
application.
Constructive res judicata comply the parties to take the issue, so that nothing is later for
discussion.
Direct res judicata (in issue now) and constructive res judicata (an artificial form of res
judicata).
State of UP vs Nawab Hussain: Nawab Hussain is a sub inspector in UP police. He was
charged after inquiry, dismissed. Appeal dismissed. Writ petition filed – That he didn’t get an
opportunity to hear. The SC said that res judicata barred it.
Devi Lal Modi vs Sales tax officer Exsto Ratlam: The SC said that constructive res judicata
barred it.
Madhura Prasad vs Dossi Bhai nb jejeboi 1971 SC: This decision consolidated the law. The
court held that the general decision of court operates as res judicata. The decision of a court
on the question of law operates as a res judicata. Pure question unrelated to facts which
gives a right is not a res judicata.
Avftar Singh vs Jajid Singh 1977: Jurisdiction was the issue. No defendant appear, no
jurisdiction, doesn’t operate as res judicata.
AIR 1950 Lahore Santa Singh v mata Singh
Cottinghan 1843: Co defendents will be bound by res judicata.
Pro forma defendant, the relief asked from him will not be a res judicata.
Competent court: Case: Devandra Kumar

S. 12 Bar to further suit

States that a plaintiff who is barred by rules from filing a further suit on the same cause of
action cannot do so in any court that follows this code.
What it means:
 If a plaintiff has already filed a suit on a specific cause of action and the suit is dismissed
based on certain rules, they cannot file another suit on the same cause of action.
 This applies to all courts to which the CPC applies.
 Section 12 of the CPC deals with the bar to further suit, which means that when a
plaintiff is precluded by rules of law from bringing a second suit in respect of the same
cause of action, he cannot evade that rule by framing the suit differently or by adding
new grounds of relief. The purpose of this section is to prevent the plaintiff from splitting
his claim and harassing the defendant by multiple suits. The section applies to both civil
and criminal cases, and to both original and appellate suits. The section also provides for
the consequences of filing a barred suit, such as dismissal, costs, and damages.
 The section does not prevent the plaintiff from filing a fresh suit on a different or
independent cause of action, even if it arises out of the same transaction or event.
This section is meant to prevent endless litigation and abuse of legal procedure by avoiding
repetition of suits on the same matter. Some of the rules that bar a further suit are:
 Section 11: Res judicata, which means that a matter that has been already decided by a
competent court cannot be re-litigated by the same parties.
 Section 21: No objection as to the place of suing, which means that an objection to the
jurisdiction of the court must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity and not in
the appellate or revisional stage.
 Section 47: Questions relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of decree, which
means that all such questions must be determined by the court executing the decree
and not by a separate suit.
 Section 95: Compensation for obtaining arrest, attachment or injunction on insufficient
grounds, which means that an order determining such an application shall bar any suit
for compensation in respect of such arrest, attachment or injunction.
 Section 144: Restitution, which means that no suit shall be instituted for the purpose of
obtaining any restitution or other relief which could be obtained by application under
this section.
 Order 11 Rule 21: Dismissal of suit for non-compliance with an order of discovery, which
means that the court may dismiss the suit if the plaintiff fails to comply with an order to
answer interrogatories, produce documents, or admit facts.
 Order 22 Rule 9: Abatement of suit, which means that the suit shall abate if the sole
plaintiff or the sole surviving plaintiff dies and the right to sue does not survive.
 Order 23 Rule 1: Withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of claim, which means that
the plaintiff may withdraw the suit or abandon part of the claim without the permission
of the court, but he shall not be entitled to institute any fresh suit in respect of such
subject-matter or such part of the claim.
 Order 23 Rule 3: Compromise of suit, which means that a compromise decree is sought
to be challenged on the ground that the compromise was not lawful or not proved.

Difference between s.11 and s.12 CPC

The main difference between Section 11 and Section 12 of the CPC is that Section 11 applies
to suits that have been already decided by a court, while Section 12 applies to suits that are
barred by law from being instituted. Section 11 requires the existence of a former suit
between the same parties, while Section 12 does not. Section 11 is based on the principle of
res judicata, while Section 12 is based on the principle of estoppel.

Section 11:
 Focuses on the finality of judgments: It states that a judgment rendered by a court
"operates as res judicata in respect of the same matter directly and substantially in issue
in the suit." This means that once a matter has been decided by a competent court, it
cannot be contested again between the same parties or their representatives. (Section
11 creates a presumption that a judgment is binding, while Section 12 does not.)
 Broader scope: It applies to all suits, regardless of the relief sought.
Section 12:
 Focuses on the bar to further suits: It states that a plaintiff who is "precluded by rules
from instituting a further suit" is barred from filing a subsequent suit on the same cause
of action. This means that even if the judgment in the first suit was not final, the plaintiff
cannot file another suit based on the same facts and legal basis.
 Narrower scope: It applies only to situations where the rules preclude a further
suit, such as cases where specific procedures or remedies are mandated.

Case laws:
 In Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal the Supreme Court held that Section 12 applies to both
civil and criminal cases, and to both original and appellate suits. The court also held that
the section does not prevent the plaintiff from filing a fresh suit on a different or
independent cause of action, even if it arises out of the same transaction or event.
 In Sohan Lal v. Mohan Lal the Supreme Court held that Section 12 does not affect the
right of the plaintiff to amend his plaint or add new parties, subject to the provisions of
Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC.
 In Raj Lakshmi Dasi v. Banamali Sen, the Supreme Court held that Section 12 does not
bar a suit for a declaratory decree, even if the plaintiff has already obtained a decree for
consequential relief on the same cause of action.
 S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannatham (AIR 1994 SC 853): The Supreme Court held
that a suit for specific performance of a contract is barred by Section 12 if a previous suit
for damages for breach of the same contract has already been dismissed.
 Ram Nath vs. Durga Das (AIR 1963 SC 1589): The Supreme Court held that a suit for
partition of joint property is barred by Section 12 if a previous suit for declaration of title
to the same property has already been dismissed.
 Union of India vs. M/s. Hindustan Aluminum Corporation Ltd. (AIR 2005 SC 444): The
Supreme Court held that a suit for recovery of money is not barred by Section 12 if a
previous suit for specific performance of a contract relating to the same money has been
dismissed.
 State of Punjab vs. Lachhman Singh (AIR 2013 SC 2657): The Supreme Court held that a
suit for eviction of a tenant is not barred by Section 12 if a previous suit for recovery of
rent from the same tenant has already been dismissed.
 Gopal Reddy vs. Mangamma (AIR 2005 AP 389): The Andhra Pradesh High Court held
that a suit for declaration of title to property is not barred by Section 12 if a previous suit
for possession of the same property has already been dismissed.
 Ramalakshmi Ammal v. Sivananjappa Chettiar (AIR 1922 Mad 330): In this case, the
court held that a party cannot file a second suit based on the same cause of action even
if the grounds for relief are different.
 M. S. Subbulakshmi v. V. R. Lakshminarayanan (AIR 1970 Madras 110): The court ruled
that a party who fails to raise all relevant issues in the first suit is barred from raising
them in a subsequent suit based on the same cause of action.
 National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Lata W/o Sh. Ram Krishan (AIR 1980 Delhi
256): The court clarified that even if the relief sought in the subsequent suit is different
from the first suit, the bar under Section 12 applies if the cause of action is the same.
 Raj Rani v. Sukhdev Singh (AIR 1988 SC 1413): The Supreme Court held that the
principle of res judicata, which bars relitigation of the same matter, is an extension of
Section 12.

Case laws illustrating exceptions to Section 12:

 State of Punjab v. Satya Pal Dang (AIR 1969 SC 903): The Supreme Court recognized an
exception to Section 12 where the subsequent suit is based on a different cause of
action arising out of the same set of facts.
 Smt. Sushila Devi v. Shri Sunder Lal & Ors. (AIR 2008 SC 2224): The court ruled that
Section 12 does not apply if the subsequent suit is based on a newly discovered cause of
action.

Limitations of Section 12:

 It does not apply to cases where the subsequent suit is based on a new cause of action.
 It does not bar a party from seeking to enforce a decree or judgment through execution
proceedings.
 It does not apply to cases where the subsequent suit is filed to set aside a judgment
obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, or coercion.

S.13 When foreign judgment not conclusive

deals with the circumstances in which a foreign judgment is not binding on an Indian court.
A foreign judgment is a judgment given by a court outside India. According to Section 13, a
foreign judgment is conclusive, meaning that it cannot be challenged or re-litigated, as to
any matter that has been directly and substantially decided between the same parties or
their successors in interest. However, there are some exceptions to this rule, which are:
 The foreign judgment has not been pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction,
meaning that the foreign court did not have the authority or jurisdiction to hear and
decide the case.
 The foreign judgment has not been given on the merits of the case, meaning that the
foreign court did not consider the evidence and arguments of both parties before
making the judgment.
 The foreign judgment is based on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to
recognize the law of India in cases where such law is applicable, meaning that the
foreign court did not apply the correct legal principles or did not respect the law of India
where relevant.
 The proceedings in which the foreign judgment was obtained are opposed to natural
justice, meaning that the foreign court did not follow the principles of fairness and
impartiality in conducting the trial.
 The foreign judgment has been obtained by fraud, meaning that the foreign judgment
was based on deception or misrepresentation by one of the parties or a third party.
 The foreign judgment sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in India,
meaning that the foreign judgment is based on a claim that is illegal or unlawful under
Indian law.
If any of these exceptions apply, the foreign judgment is not conclusive and can be
challenged in an Indian court. The Indian court will then decide whether to enforce the
foreign judgment or not, based on the facts and circumstances of the case.

S.14 Presumption as to foreign judgements

which deals with the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in India. According
to this section, the court shall presume that any document purporting to be a certified copy
of a foreign judgment was pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction, unless the
contrary appears on the record. However, this presumption can be rebutted by proving that
the foreign court lacked jurisdiction over the matter or the parties.

S.15 Court in which suits to be instituted

Every suit shall be instituted in the court of the lowest grade competent to try it. This means
that the plaintiff should file the suit in the court that has the lowest authority and
jurisdiction to hear and decide the case.
The competency of the court is determined by its pecuniary jurisdiction and local
jurisdiction. Pecuniary jurisdiction refers to the maximum amount of money that a court can
adjudicate in a civil suit. Local jurisdiction refers to the geographical area over which a court
has authority. A plaintiff cannot file a suit in a court that does not have either pecuniary
jurisdiction or local jurisdiction over the dispute.
s.16 Suits to be instituted where subject matter situate
Suits relating to immovable property must be instituted in the court within the local limits of
whose jurisdiction the property is situated. This rule is based on the principle of
convenience and justice, as the court nearest to the property would be in a better position
to adjudicate upon the disputes arising out of it.
Section 16 is subject to the pecuniary or other limitations prescribed by any law, which
means that the suit must also satisfy the requirements of jurisdiction based on the value of
the subject matter and the nature of the relief sought.
Section 16 also provides an exception to the general rule, which states that a suit to obtain
relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immovable property held by or on behalf of
the defendant, may where the relief sought can be entirely obtained through his personal
obedience be instituted either in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the
property is situate, or in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant
actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain. This
exception is based on the principle of personal jurisdiction, which allows the plaintiff to sue
the defendant where he can be found and served.

s.17 Suits for immovable property situate within jurisdiction of different courts –
(territorial jurisdiction determination here)
Section 17 is an exception to the general rule laid down in Section 16, which states that suits
relating to immovable property must be instituted in the court within the local limits of
whose jurisdiction the property is situated. Section 17 allows the plaintiff to institute a suit
in any court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is
situated, if the suit is to obtain relief respecting or compensation for wrong to immovable
property.
The rationale behind Section 17 is to avoid multiplicity of suits and inconvenience to the
parties, especially when the property is situated in multiple jurisdictions. The plaintiff can
choose to file the suit in any of the courts having jurisdiction over the property, subject to
the pecuniary or other limitations prescribed by any law.
Section 17 also contains a proviso, which states that the entire claim must be cognizable by
the court in which the suit is filed, in respect of the value of the subject-matter of the suit.
This means that the court must have the pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the suit, based on
the value of the property or the relief sought. If the value of the subject-matter of the suit
exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court, the court will not be able to hear the suit.

s.18 Place of institution of suit where local limits of jurisdiction of courts are uncertain
Section 18 states that if it is alleged to be uncertain within the local limits of the jurisdiction
of which of two or more courts any immovable property is situated, any one of those courts
may, if satisfied that there is ground for the alleged uncertainty, record a statement to that
effect and proceed to entertain and dispose of the suit relating to that property.
Section 18 further states that the decree of the court that hears the suit shall have the same
effect as if the property were situated 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.
Section 18 also provides a safeguard for the parties, by stating that if a statement has not
been recorded under sub-section (1), and an objection is taken before an appellate or
revisional court that the decree or order in the suit was made by a court not having
jurisdiction where the property is situated, the appellate or revisional court shall not allow
the objection unless it is of the opinion that there was no reasonable ground for uncertainty
as to the court having jurisdiction at the time of the institution of the suit, and there has
been a consequent failure of justice.

s.19 Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables

Section 19 of the CPC deals with the place of suing in cases where the suit is
for compensation for wrongs done to the person or to movable property.
The section provides that 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.
The section gives two illustrations to explain the application of the section:
(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.
The section is based on the principle that the plaintiff should have the convenience of
choosing the forum where he can sue the defendant for the wrong done to him or his
property.
The section also ensures that the defendant is not subjected to undue hardship by being
sued in a distant place where he has no connection with the cause of action.
The section applies only to suits for compensation for wrongs, and not to suits
for injunctions or declarations relating to wrongs.
The section also applies only to wrongs done to the person or to movable property, and not
to wrongs done to immovable property. For suits relating to immovable property, sections
16 to 18 of the CPC are applicable.
The section is subject to the provisions of sections 21 and 22 of the CPC, which deal with
the objections to jurisdiction and the power of the Court to transfer suits.

s.20 Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside, or cause of action arises
(territorial jurisdiction determination here)
Section 20 of the CPC deals with the place of suing in cases where the suit is not related
to immovable property or compensation for wrongs to person or movable property.
The section provides that 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 work for gain, as
aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or
© the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
The section also gives an explanation that a corporation shall be deemed to carry on
business at its sole or principal office in India or, in respect of any cause of action arising at
any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place.
The section also gives four illustrations to explain the application of the section:
(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 object, the suit cannot proceed without the leave of the Court.
© A contracts with B at Calcutta to deliver certain goods at B’s godown at Delhi. A delivers
the goods accordingly. B pays A the price of the goods at Delhi. A may sue B for the price
either in Calcutta or in Delhi.
(d) A, residing in Delhi, is employed by B, residing in Calcutta, to superintend his business in
Bombay, and is there dismissed by B. A may sue B for damages either in Calcutta, where B
resides, or in Bombay, where the cause of action arose.

s.21 Objection to jurisdiction

Section 21 of the CPC deals with the objections to jurisdiction as to the place of suing in civil
suits.
The section clarifies that no objection on jurisdictional grounds related to the place of suing
can be raised at the appellate or revisional stages unless it was presented at the earliest
opportunity in the court of first instance.
The section also specifies that such objection can be allowed only if there has been
a consequent failure of justice due to the wrong assumption of jurisdiction by the court of
first instance.
The section further provides that no objection as to the competence of a court with
reference to the pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction or the local limits of its jurisdiction in
executing a decree shall be allowed by any appellate or revisional court unless the same
conditions are met.
The section is based on the principle that the defects as to territorial or pecuniary
jurisdiction can be waived by the parties and do not affect the inherent jurisdiction of the
court over the subject matter of the suit.
The section aims to protect the litigants who have initiated the proceedings with good
faith and bona fide reasons and to prevent them from any kind of harassment or delay due
to technical objections.

s.21A Bar on suit to set aside decree on objection as to place of suing

Section 21 of CPC states that if a defendant has a valid objection to the jurisdiction of the
court in which the suit is filed, he must raise the objection in the written statement. If he
fails to do so, he will be deemed to have waived his objection. If the defendant raises an
objection to the jurisdiction of the court, the court will decide the issue of jurisdiction
before proceeding with the suit. If the court finds that it does not have jurisdiction, it will
dismiss the suit. If the court finds that it has jurisdiction, it will proceed with the suit. The
defendant can challenge the decree passed by the court on the ground of jurisdiction, if he
has raised the objection in the written statement and the court has found that it does not
have jurisdiction.
Section 21A of CPC states that 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. This means that even if a defendant could have raised an objection to the
jurisdiction of the court in which the suit was filed, he cannot challenge the decree passed
by that court on the ground of jurisdiction. This provision is intended to prevent multiplicity
of suits and harassment of the parties.

s.22 Power to transfer suits which may be instituted in more than once court
Section 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, is a provision that gives the power to
transfer suits which may be instituted in more than one court. This means that if a suit can
be filed in any one of two or more courts, and it is filed in one of them, then any defendant
can apply to have the suit transferred to another court, after giving notice to the other
parties. The court to which the application is made will decide which of the several courts
having jurisdiction will hear the suit, after considering the objections of the other parties, if
any.
The purpose of Section 22 is to avoid inconvenience and hardship to the parties, and to
ensure a fair and impartial trial. The defendant can apply for transfer of the suit at the
earliest possible opportunity, and in any case before the issues are settled. The court will
consider various factors, such as the convenience of the parties and the witnesses, the
balance of convenience, the interest of justice, the nature of the suit, the availability of
evidence, etc., while deciding the transfer application.

Tara Devi vs Shri Takur Radha Krishna Mahaji 1987 SC: Objective stand on valuation of the
suit.

s.26 Institution of suit

Section 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which deals with the institution of
suits. A suit is a civil proceeding initiated by a person who seeks to enforce a legal right or
remedy against another person or the state. A suit is instituted by the presentation of a
plaint, which is a written statement of the facts and the relief claimed by the plaintiff. The
plaint must be presented to the court that has the jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit.
The plaint must also be accompanied by an affidavit, which is a sworn statement of the
facts.
Section 26 of the CPC provides the general rule for the institution of suits, but there may be
other modes of instituting suits as prescribed by the law. For example, some suits may be
instituted by filing a petition or an application instead of a plaint. Section 26 also applies to
the suits of civil nature, which means the suits that are not expressly or impliedly barred by
any law. The suits that are barred by any law are those that are either prohibited by a
specific provision or are inconsistent with the general principles of justice, equity and good
conscience.
The institution of a suit is the first step in the process of civil litigation, which involves
various stages such as service of summons, filing of written statement, framing of issues,
discovery and inspection, admission and denial, production of evidence, hearing and
judgment. The institution of a suit is a crucial stage as it determines the scope and subject
matter of the suit, the parties to the suit, the cause of action of the suit, and the relief
sought by the plaintiff. The institution of a suit also sets the limitation period for the suit,
which means the time within which the suit must be filed. If the suit is not filed within the
limitation period, it will be dismissed as time-barred.

Order I (Section 26 to be read with order 1)

Rule 1 : Who may be joined as plaintiff

The meaning of “may” here: Injustice and liberty for party. It is left open so that parties can
either decide for themselves, out of court settlement, etc.

(There are lot of gaps left in CPC because there are lots of unforeseen mistakes in the CPC
like “may” in rule 1 Order 1).

Rule 2 of Order 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) empowers the court to order
separate trials of different causes of action joined in one suit, if it appears that such joinder
may embarrass or delay the trial or is otherwise inconvenient. The court may also make any
other order that may be expedient in the interests of justice. The purpose of this rule is to
avoid confusion and complexity in the trial and to ensure a fair and speedy disposal of the
suit. (THE JUDGE TAKES THE CALL HERE: they can only assess what the situation demand and
what is just)

Rule 4 gives the judge the flexibility : in the wording “may”.