Jurisdiction of Civil Courts

Under Code of Civil Procedure

Introduction
Jurisdiction has not been explained in the Code of Civil Procedure. In simple
words, it can be described as the power of the court to settle the matter. 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
must have jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Hence, the Jurisdiction
commonly rests where the crime is committed.

Meaning of jurisdiction
Jurisdiction is defined as the limit of judicial authority or extent to which a court
of law can exercise its authority over suits, cases, appeals etc. A 1921 Calcutta
High Court judgement in the case of Hriday Nath Roy Vs Ram Chandra sought
to explain the meaning of the term ‘Jurisdiction’ in detail. An investigation of the
cases in the texts shows several attempts to explain the word Jurisdiction which
has been declared to be the power to hear and determine the issues of law and
the fact or the authority by which their judicial powers take knowledge of facts
and decide causes or the authority to hear and decide the legal dispute or the
power to hear and determine the subject matter in the dispute among the
parties to a suit and to adjudicate or exercise any judicial power over them or
the ability to hear, determine and declare judgement on issues before the court
or the power or authority which is given to a court by government to
understand and learn causes between parties and to give a judgement into the
effect or the power to enquire into the facts to apply the law to pronounce the
Judgement and put it into execution.

Lack of jurisdiction and irregular exercise of

jurisdiction
Whenever the suit is made before the court the initial issue is to decide whether
the court has jurisdiction to deal with the matter. If the court has all the three
territorial, pecuniary or subject matter jurisdiction then simply the court has the
power to deal with any of the cases. If the court does not have any of the
jurisdiction then it will be recognised as lack of jurisdiction and irregular
exercise of jurisdiction. When the court does not have jurisdiction to decide the
case then such decision will be regarded as void or voidable depending upon the
circumstances.

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 not only suitable that panel should have any right to deal with the issue or
that the court has a pecuniary jurisdiction of the court has a local jurisdiction,
but the court must be able to grant the compensation in such matter. In the
case of Official Trustee Vs Sachin Nath, the court held that in order to deal with
the topic the court must not be the only jurisdiction to decide a specific matter
but also the court has the ability to give the order for which it is examined.

Courts and Tribunals

Basis for
Tribunal Court
comparison

Tribunal can be defined as Courts refer to the part of a legal

minor courts that resolve system which is organised to give
Meaning
conflicts arising in special their judgement on civil and criminal
cases. cases.

Acquittal, judgement, Decree,

Decision Official payment
conviction.
 Deals with Particular cases Different types of cases

Chairperson and other judicial Judges or panel of judges or

Headed by
members. magistrate

Jurisdiction of foreign courts

A foreign court is described as a court outside India and not authorised or
continued by the authority of the Central Government, and a foreign judgement
means a judgement of a foreign court. In other words, a foreign judgement
means an adjudication by a foreign court upon a matter before it. The following
conditions would give power to the foreign courts to adjudicate a matter
presented before it:

1. When the person is a subject of a foreign country in which the

judgement has been obtained.
2. If he was a resident of a foreign country when the action was
commenced and the summons was served on him.
3. When the person is in the character of plaintiff chooses the foreign
court as the forum for taking action in which forum he issued later.
4. When the party on summons voluntarily appeared.
5. When through an agreement, a person has agreed to present himself
to the forum in which the judgement is obtained.

Kinds of jurisdiction

Territorial or local jurisdiction

Under this territorial or local jurisdiction, the geographical limits of a court’s
authority are clearly delineated and specified. It cannot exercise authority
beyond that geographical/ territorial limit. For example, if a certain crime is
committed in Madhya Pradesh, only the courts of law within the borders of
Madhya Pradesh can hear and decide the case. Furthermore, Section 16 of the
Code of Civil Procedure explains the territorial jurisdiction on the grounds of the
location of the immovable property. In the case of Harshad Chiman Lal Modi Vs
D.L.F Universal Ltd , the court interpreted Section 16 that the suit pertaining to
immovable property should be brought to the court. The court does not have
the power to decide the rights of property which are not situated. However, the
court can still pass a relief if the opposite party agrees to try the suit in such a
case.

Pecuniary jurisdiction
Pecuniary means ‘related to capital.’ It approaches the question of whether the
court is competent to try the case of the financial value. The code allows
analysing the case unless the suit’s value exceeds the financial limit of the
court. Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure commands the organisation of
the suit in the court of the low grade. It refers to pecuniary jurisdiction of Civil
court. It is a course of the method and it does not affect the jurisdiction of the
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.
For example, ’A ’wants to accuse ‘B’ due to a violation of the contract to obtain
Rs 5000 in Bombay. The Bombay High Court has original jurisdiction and small
causes court with the jurisdiction up to Rs 50000. So, a suit to obtain Rs 5000
should ideally be dealt with small causes court. In the case of Karan Singh Vs
Chaman Paswan the plaintiff filed a suit in the subordinate court involving an
amount of Rs 2950, but the court rejected the case. Later his next appeal was
allowed by the High Court, but it ordered him to pay the deficit amount. The
appellant contested that the decision of the district court will be a nullity, but
the High Court dismissed the claim. Later the Supreme Court confirmed the
decision of the High Court declaring that the decision of district court won’t be
void.

Jurisdiction as to the subject matter

The subject matter can be defined as the authority vested in a court to
understand and try cases concerning a special type of subject matter. In other
words, it means that some courts are banned from hearing cases of a certain
nature. No question of choices can be decided by the court which do not have
subject matter jurisdiction. Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure is related
to the stage challenging the jurisdiction. For Example, “Ranveer”, a resident of
Sonipat bought a food item of ‘AA’ brand that was plagued with pests. He
should prosecute ‘ZZ’ company in Sonipat District forum rather than District
Civil Court of Sonipat.
Original and appellate jurisdiction
Appellate jurisdiction refers to the court’s authority to review or rehearsal the
cases that have been already decided in the lower courts. In the Indian
circumstances, both the High Court and Supreme Court have the appellate
jurisdiction to take the subjects that are bought in the form of appeals.

Original Jurisdiction refers to the court’s authority to take notice of cases that
could be decided in these courts in the first instance itself. Unlike appellate
jurisdiction wherein courts review the previously decided matter, here the cases
are heard afresh.

Exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction

In Civil Procedure, exclusive jurisdiction means where a single court has the
authority to decide a case to the rejection of all the courts. This jurisdiction is
decided on the basis of the subject matter dealt with by a specific court. For
example, the U.S District courts have particular jurisdiction on insolvency
topics.

Concurrent jurisdiction exists where two or more courts from different systems
simultaneously have jurisdiction over a particular case. In this situation, parties
will try to have their civil or criminal case heard in the court that they perceive
will be most favourable to them.

General and special jurisdiction

General jurisdiction means that general courts do not limit themselves to
hearing only one type of cases. This type of jurisdiction means that a court has
the power to hear all types of cases. So the court that has general jurisdiction
can hear criminal, civil, family court case and much more.

Specific jurisdiction is the ability of the court to hear a lawsuit in a state other
than the defendant’s home state if that defendant has minimum contacts within
the state where the suit will be tried.
Legal and equitable jurisdiction
Equitable jurisdiction belongs to the authorities of the courts to take specific
actions and pass some orders in order to deliver an equitable and reasonable
outcome. These judgments are usually outside the purview of law, in the sense
that support provided by the courts may not be necessarily confirmed by the
statue. In the case of K.K.Velusamy Vs N.Palanisamy, the Supreme Court of
India held that Section 151 does not give any special jurisdiction to civil courts,
but only presents for the application of discretionary power to achieve the ends
of justice. This suggests that the court cannot give any such order which may
be denied under any law in such an order that may be prohibited under any law
in order to achieve the ends of justice. This would lead to the conclusion that
such equitable jurisdiction is secondary to the authority of the courts to
implement the law.

Expounding and expanding jurisdiction

Expounding jurisdiction means to describe, clarify and explain jurisdiction.
Expanding jurisdiction means to develop, expand or prolong jurisdiction. It is
the duty of the court to clarify its jurisdiction and it is not proper for the court to
extend its jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction of civil court

Section 9 of CPC
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.

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.
i) The suit of civil nature

Meaning
‘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.
In the case of Kehar Singh Nihal Singh Vs Custodian General, 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.

Nature and scope

The expression ‘suit of civil nature’ will cover the private rights and obligations
of the citizens. 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.

Explanation of doctrine
Each phrase and description assigns a duty on the court to apply jurisdiction for
the accomplishment of rights. No court can decline to examine if it is of the
information mentioned in Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The word
civil according to the dictionary suggests, associating to a citizen as an
individual. The word nature has been called the primary qualities of a person or
thing. The word civil nature is prevalent than the word civil proceeding. The
doctrine described the theory of the jurisdiction of civil courts under section 9 of
the Code of Civil Procedure in PMA Metropolitan Vs M.M. Marthoma the Supreme
Court observed that:

 The phrases used in section 9 has a positive and negative intent.

 The original part has a broader sense as it includes all the problems of
civil nature; on the other hand, the latter part has a wider sense as it
refuses the topic which is impliedly or expressly barred.
  The two reasons mentioned in Section 9 reveals the legislative
purposes.
 It designated duty on the court to perform the jurisdiction for the
implementation of private rights
 No court has the benefit to refuse the matter which introduces under
this section
 It is necessary to take the knowledge of matter because the word
“shall” is used, which means that it is a compulsory section.
In the case of Shankar Narayanan Potti vs K. Sreedevi, 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 Das 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.

Test
A suit in which the right to property or to an office is struck is a suit of a civil
nature, notwithstanding that such right may depend only on the choice of a
question as to religious rituals or ceremonies.

ii) Cognizance not barred

A claimant having a complaint of a civil nature has the power to begin a civil
suit unless its cognizance is barred, either expressly or impliedly.

Suits expressly barred

A suit is said to expressly barred when it is prohibited by the statute for the
time being in force. It is subject to the competent legislature to bar the
jurisdiction of civil courts with regard to a specific class of suits of civil nature,
provided that, in doing so it retains itself within the scope of legislation given to
it and does not contradict any terms of the constitution.

Suits impliedly barred

A suit is said to be impliedly barred when it is said to be excluded by general
principles of law. When a specific remedy is given by statute, it, therefore,
denies a person who requires a remedy of any different form than is given by
statute. When an act formed an obligation and made its performance in a
specified manner that performance cannot be implemented in any other
manner.

Presumption as to jurisdiction
In dealing with the subject whether a civil court’s jurisdiction to analyse a suit is
barred or not, it is necessary to bear in mind that every opinion should be made
in support of the jurisdiction of a civil court. The rejection of the jurisdiction of a
civil court to entertain civil causes should not be easily inferred unless the
appropriate law contains express terms to that effect or points to a significant
and inevitable implication of nature.

Burden of proof
It is well proved that it is for the party who tries to dismiss the jurisdiction of
the civil court to establish it. It is uniformly well established that the statue
dismissing the jurisdiction of a civil court must be strictly explained. In the case
of doubt as to jurisdiction, the court should lean towards the theory of
jurisdiction. A civil court has original authority to determine the issue of its own
jurisdiction although as a consequence of such query it may become that it has
no jurisdiction to consider the suit.

Exclusion of jurisdiction: Limitations

The common assumption is that the civil court has the jurisdiction to try the
case. The prosecution has a case of a civil nature has, independent of any
statute, a power to initiate a suit in a civil court unless its notice is expressly or
impliedly barred yet it cannot be said that the jurisdiction is entirely eliminated.
In the case of Secretary of State Vs Mask & Co , the Privy Council rightly
mentioned that it is established law that the exclusion of jurisdiction of the civil
court is not to be readily inferred but that such prohibition is either impliedly
barred or explicitly expressed. It is also established that civil court has
jurisdiction to examine into the cases which have not complied with
fundamental principles of judicial procedure. In the case of State of A.P. Vs
Majeti Laxmi Kanth Rao, the apex court has analysed to decide the elimination
of jurisdiction of the Civil Courts. Firstly, the legislative intent to remove the suit
is to be decided. It could be either directly or implicitly. The court needs to find
and deduce the causes for the exclusion of the Civil courts and the explanation
for it but the reason is not directed for judicial examination. After the court is
convinced with the grounds, the court must find out whether the statute that
prohibits the jurisdiction grants for an alternative remedy. In case there is no
alternative remedy possible, the civil court’s jurisdiction cannot be eliminated.
But it was ruled in Balawwa v. Hasanabi, Civil court’s jurisdiction is terminated
with regard to a tribunal established by a statute only to the extent that the
support granted by the tribunal in question. In this aspect, the Allahabad High
court in various judgements has held that the suit is decreased from the
jurisdiction of civil courts of the knowledge of the complete suit is forbidden. It
means that for some suits wherein some parts are not decided by the civil court
because of implied or express prohibition, it does not mean that the entire suit
will be prohibited. As the additional points of law are exceeding the purview of
the tribunal or even if it is within its scope of the particular tribunal regulated
under the act, civil court’s jurisdiction is not restrained as it could still pass
judgement as it still has the original jurisdiction to consider the suits. The
situation remains obscure whether the appropriate tribunals under the act can
give the order with regard to the part of the trial wherein the jurisdiction of the
civil court is obstructed.

Principles of exclusion of jurisdiction of civil

court

Dhulabhai v. state of MP
Hidyatullah summarized the following principles relating to exclusion of
jurisdiction of civil courts:

1. When a statute provides finality to the orders of particular tribunals,

the civil court jurisdiction must be kept to be prohibited. Such a
provision does not eliminate those cases where the terms of the act
have not complied with fundamental laws of judicial method.
2. When there is an express bar of jurisdiction of the court, an
examination of a scheme of a particular act to find the adequacy or
sufficiency of remedies provided may be important but this is not
crucial for maintaining the jurisdiction of a civil court
3. It examines the terms of a specific act as ultra vires cannot be brought
before tribunals constituted under the act. Even the High Court cannot
go for revision or reference from the decision of the tribunal.
4. When the terms are already stated illegal or declared the
constitutionality of any terms is to be challenged, then a suit is open. A
 writ of certiorari may introduce a direction to refund but it is not a
necessary remedy to compensate a suit.
5. When the particular Act includes no method for a return of tax
collected in excess of constitutional goals, a suit lies.
6. Prohibition of the jurisdiction of a civil court is not ready to be inferred
unless the conditions above set down apply.

Premier automobiles v. K.D Wadke

The Supreme Court laid down the following principles as relevant to the
jurisdiction of civil courts in association with industrial disputes:

1. If a conflict is not an industrial conflict, nor does it correlate to the

enforcement of any other right under the industrial dispute act, the
remedy lies only in civil court.
2. If a conflict is an industrial conflict emerging out of a right or liability
under the general or public law, the jurisdiction of the court is an
alternative left to the person involved to decide his remedy for the
support which is sufficient to be given in a particular remedy.
3. If an industrial dispute relates to the implementation of the right or a
duty organised under the act, then the only remedy available is to get
adjudication under the act.

Rajasthan SRTC v. Krishna Kant

The Supreme court summarized the following principles applicable to industrial
disputes:

1. When the conflict originates from the common law of contract, a suit
registered in civil court is not maintainable even though such conflict
establish industrial dispute within the definition of Section 2(k) of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. When a dispute involves the recognition or enforcement of rights
created by an enactment which is called sister enactments and do not
provide a forum for the resolution of such dispute, the only remedy is
to approach the forum created, provided they constitute industrial
dispute within Section 2(k) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
 3. It is not right to say that the assistance provided by Industrial dispute
act are not equally useful for the ground that entrance to forum
depends upon a recommendation being made by the relevant
government.
4. The power given is the power to suggest and not the power to decide,
though it may be that the government is allowed to examine.
5. It is consistent with the policy of law aforesaid i.e command to
parliament and state legislature to declare a provision allowing a
workman to address the labour court- i.e., without the need of a
recommendation by the government in case of industrial dispute
included by Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Conclusion
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 it’s notification is expressly barred or bared by significant
suggestion. Civil court has jurisdiction to resolve the problem of its jurisdiction.

Reference
1. (1959) AIR P&H 58.
2. Code of Civil Procedure.