JURISDICTION AND PLACE OF SUING

Advertisements

Spread the love

Post Views: 904

This article is written by Ab Wahid Lone of 10th Semester of Central University of Kashmir, an intern under Legal Vidhiya

Abstract

Have you ever wondered how to file a civil lawsuit in an Indian civil court? First, it’s essential to understand that civil proceedings in India are governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). Before initiating a civil suit, it’s necessary to determine the court’s jurisdiction according to Section 9 and the appropriate location for filing under Section 18 of the CPC. A fundamental principle of English law adopted and made into force by Indian law states that if someone’s rights have been violated or impeded, or if they have been prevented from accessing their pledged rights, a judicial tribunal must have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. Depending on the case, the individual may be entitled to reinstated rights or compensation for damages sustained. To pursue such a claim, the individual must approach the appropriate forum that has jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter and grant the requested remedy. Within the realm of legal disputes, a diverse array of cases exists, each with its distinct characteristics and implications. These cases can encompass many issues, such as property disputes, contractual disagreements, civil wrongdoings, divorces, and much more. The power of a court to hear and render a verdict on a case may be limited by various factors, such as jurisdictional constraints or the nature of the case itself. However, an often overlooked yet crucial aspect of legal proceedings is determining the venue or location of the trial for a particular case. It is important to note that The expression “place of suing” simply means the venue for the trial, and it has nothing to do with the court’s competency. This paper explores the complex relationship between jurisdiction and place of suing. It delves deeply into these interconnected concepts, highlighting their crucial importance, various types, and the key factors that influence the selection of the appropriate venue for a particular legal issue.

Keywords: Jurisdiction, court, place of suing, Pecuniary jurisdiction, Territorial jurisdiction, Subject matter jurisdiction

Research Methodology

In this paper, a research methodology has been developed to investigate the intricate aspects of jurisdiction and place of suing. The adopted research method is the doctrinal approach, and data has been collected from academic journals, books, reports, and websites. The primary goal of this study is to gain a deeper understanding of this crucial legal topic. By conducting a thorough data analysis and considering ethical considerations, the paper aims to provide valuable insights to the legal community and enhance their understanding of jurisdictional matters in legal proceedings.

Introduction

The Indian Legal System follows the principle of ‘Ubi jus, ibi remedium’, which means that every wrong has a corresponding right to remedy. If someone has been wronged and wants to claim compensation, they must approach the appropriate court with the power to adjudicate the matter and grant the relief or compensation they seek. In order to maintain clarity and fairness when deciding which court has jurisdiction and where the trial should be held, Sections 15 to 20 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) are utilized. These sections offer important instructions for settling jurisdictional conflicts and identifying the appropriate location for the trial.

Section 15 requires the plaintiff to file the suit in the court with the lowest level of competency to hear it. Sections 16 to 18 deal with suits relating to immovable property. Section 19 applies to suits for compensation for wrongs to a person or movable property. Section 20 is a residuary section and covers all cases not dealt with by Sections Is to 19. Section 21 recognises the well-established principle that the defect as to territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction can be waived. It forbids an appellate or revisional court to allow objection to the place of suing or pecuniary limits. Section 21-A bars a substantive suit for setting aside a decree passed by a court on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction means the power or authority of a court of law to hear and determine a cause or a matter. It is the power to entertain, deal with and decide a suit, an action, petition or proceeding. Jurisdiction of a Court means the extent of the authority of a Court to administer justice prescribed with reference to the subject matter, pecuniary value and local limits. As per the ruling in the case of Official Trustee v. Sachindranath (A.I.R 1969), it was held that jurisdiction not only involves the power to hear the matter at hand but must also include the authority to adjudicate the question at issue. A court with no jurisdiction is considered coram non-judice.

According to Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) in India, civil courts have the authority to hear all civil suits, except for those that are either expressly or implicitly barred.

The Supreme Court explained the concept of jurisdiction under section 9 in Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan V. Moran Mar Marthoma^{^[1]};the Court stated:

1. The phraseology used in the section is both positive and negative,

2. The earlier part opens the door widely, and the latter debars the entry of those which are expressly or impliedly barred.

3. The two explanations, one from the inception and the second added in 1976, reflects the legislative intentions.

4. Those religious matters involving rights of the property or the office concerned, irrespective of whether any fee is attached to the office, are civil, and the civil Court is competent to try such suit.

5. Each word and expression cast an obligation on the Court to exercise jurisdiction to enforce rights.

6. The word ‘shall’ make it mandatory.

7. No court can reject a lawsuit if it falls under the section’s description.

However, the court cannot try any suit if its cognizance is expressly or impliedly barred. If an enactment in force specifically takes away the judicial power of the civil court on some issues, then a suit is said to be expressly barred. The legislature has the power to bar the civil court’s jurisdiction on specific types of suits as long as it stays within the boundaries set by the Constitution of India. On the other hand, a suit is impliedly barred when a general principle of law bars jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction and place of suing (Sec 15-20)

There are three kinds of jurisdiction to determine the place of suing:-

Pecuniary jurisdictions
Territorial jurisdiction
Subject matter jurisdiction

For a court to try a matter, it must have jurisdiction in all three areas. Suppose a court without proper jurisdiction tries a case. In that case, it is considered an irregular exercise of jurisdiction or lack of jurisdiction, which can render the decision void or voidable, depending on the situation. Sections 15-20 explain the different types of jurisdictions, while Section 21 addresses judgments made by courts without jurisdiction. The jurisdiction over civil matters, both territorial and pecuniary, is typically defined by state laws concerning civil courts.

Pecuniary jurisdictions

Generally, Every suit shall be instituted in the court of the lowest grade competent to try it.’ It thus directs the suitor to institute a suit in the court of the lowest grade.

Section 15 of the Code refers to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. It states that every suit should be instituted in the court of the lowest grade competent to try it.? The rule laid down in the section is a rule of procedure and does not affect the court’s jurisdiction. Hence, a decree passed by a court of a higher grade cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. It is merely an irregularity covered by section 99 of the code, and the decree passed by the court is not a nullity.

Object

This provision has two purposes:

to prevent higher courts from being overloaded with lawsuits and
to make it easier for parties and witnesses to participate in such lawsuits.

Mode of valuation

Prima facie, At first glance, the value stated by the plaintiff in the plaint determines the court’s jurisdiction, not the amount that may eventually be awarded in the final decree. For example, suppose the lowest grade court’s pecuniary jurisdiction is Rs 15,000, and the plaintiff files a suit for accounts, even if the court ultimately finds that Rs 20,000 is due. In that case, the court still has the jurisdiction to issue a decree for that amount.

In Karan Singh v. Chaman Paswan,^[2] The plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the subordinate court seeking damages of Rs. 2950 for the illegal deprivation of the leased property. Unfortunately, the court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appealed to the district court, but the Order of the subordinate court was upheld. The plaintiff made a second appeal to the High Court, which reversed the judgment of the subordinate courts and held the defendant liable for Rs. 9980 in damages. The defendant contested the Order passed by the district court, claiming it was null and void because of its incompetency in light of the limit for pecuniary jurisdiction. However, the High Court dismissed this claim. The matter was then taken to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the decision of the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the decree passed by the District Court was not a nullity and that a mere change of forum could not have caused prejudice to the appellant. Therefore, the decree passed by the District Court was upheld.

Usually, a court will accept a valuation of the plaintiff in the plaint and proceed to decide the suit on merits on that basis. That does not mean that the plaintiff, in all cases, is at liberty to assign any arbitrary value to the suit and choose the court where he wants to file a lawsuit. If a plaintiff intentionally undervalues or overvalues their claim to choose a specific court, it cannot be considered accurately valued. The court must then return it to be filed in the appropriate court. If the court suspects the valuation was falsely made to avoid jurisdiction, the plaintiff may be asked to prove the valuation is correct.

It is important to remember that the monetary value of deciding pecuniary jurisdiction varies amongst High Courts. The respective High Court Rules determine this limit. In many states, High Courts have no pecuniary jurisdiction. All civil suits go before District Courts, and only appeals lie before the High Court.

Territorial Jurisdiction

Types of suits

Suits can be classified into four categories based on a court’s territorial jurisdiction., viz.:

(a) Suits in respect of immovable property;

(b) Suits for movable property;

(d) Other suits.

Immovable property: Sections 16-18

Sections 16 to 18 deal with suits regarding immovable property. Section 16(a)-(e) covers five types of suits: ViZ.:

(i) Suits for recovery of immovable property;

(i) Suits for partition of immovable property;

(i) For mortgages or charges on immovable property, options include foreclosure, sale, or redemption.

(iv) Suits for determination of any other right to or interest in immovable property; and

(v) Suits for torts to immovable property.

These suits must be filed in the court located within the jurisdiction where the property is situated. This is very clear and simple and does not create any difficulty. But what will happen if the property is situated within the jurisdiction of more than one court? Section 17 of the Code provides for this contingency. It says that where a suit is to obtain a relief respecting, or damage for torts to, immovable property located within the jurisdiction of different courts, they can file a suit in the court within the local limits where any part of the property is situated, provided that the suit is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of such court. This provision is intended for the benefit of suitors and to prevent a multiplicity of suits.

Section 18

In certain situations, it may be difficult to determine which court has jurisdiction over a particular property. In such a case, if satisfied with the uncertainty, one of these courts may proceed to entertain and dispose of the suit after recording a statement to that effect.

Suppose a statement is not recorded under sub-section (1), and an objection is raised before an Appellate or Revisional Court regarding a decree or order in a suit involving a property made by a court lacking jurisdiction over where the property is located. In that case, the Appellate or Revisional Court cannot allow the objection unless it believes there was no reasonable doubt about the court’s jurisdiction when the suit was filed and that justice was not served as a result.

Movable property: Section 19

It has been said movable follows the person ( Mobilia sequuntur personam).

A suit for wrong to moveable property may be filed, at the plaintiff’s discretion, either in the location of the alleged wrongdoing or where the defendant resides, does business, or performs personal labour for pay.

Where a series of acts constitute the wrong, a suit may be brought anywhere where one of the acts was performed. Similarly, where a wrongful act is committed at one place, and the consequences ensue at another place, a suit can be instituted at the plaintiff’s option where the action occurred, or consequences followed.

Compensation for wrong: Section 19

A suit for compensation for wrong to a person may be instituted at the plaintiff’s option, either where such.

The wrong was done
The defendant resides
The defendant carries on business
The defendant personally works to gain

For example, if A, who resides in Delhi, beats B in Calcutta, B can sue A in either Calcutta or Delhi.

Other Suits: Section 20

Section 20 provides for all other cases not covered by previous rules. All such suits may be filed at the plaintiff’s option in any of the following courts, viz.:

1) Where the cause of action, wholly or partly, arises; or

(11) Where the defendant resides or carries on business or personally works for gain or

(i) If there are two or more defendants, any of them who reside, carry on business or work for gain at that place can be sued. However, in such cases, either the leave of the Court is obtained, or the defendants who do not reside or carry on business or personally work for gain at that place acquiesce in such institution.

Section 20 also provides that if the cause of action arises at the temporary residence, the person should be deemed to reside at both places. This means that the person’s permanent dwelling place is treated as their residence.

Section 20 is subject to the limitations contained in Sections 15 to 19. The plaintiff is restricted to filing a suit only at the places specified in the Code, not anywhere they desire.

For example, if A wants to sue B and C for a cause of action that arose in Benaras, they can do so there. Alternatively, A can sue them in Calcutta if B resides there or in Delhi if C resides there. However, if the non-resident defendant objects, the suit cannot proceed without the leave of the Court.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

Multiple types of litigation have been delegated to different courts. For instance, the Presidency Small Cause Court has no jurisdiction to try a suit for a specific contract performance. Likewise, suits for testamentary succession, divorce cases, probate proceedings, insolvency matters, etc., cannot be entertained by a Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division). This is called jurisdiction as to the subject matter of the suit.

Where a court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of a suit, there is an inherent lack of jurisdiction, and a decree passed, the judgment rendered, or the order made is a nullity.

Objection as to Jurisdiction: Section 21

It is a fundamental rule that a decree of a court without jurisdiction is a nullity. Halsbury rightly states:

“where by reason of any limitation imposed by statute, charter or commission, a court is without jurisdiction to entertain any particular action or matter, neither the acquiesce nor the express consent of the parties can confer jurisdiction upon the court nor can consent to give a court jurisdiction if a condition which goes to the root of the jurisdiction has not been performed or fulfilled.”

However, this rule does not apply to territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction. If a court makes a mistake in exercising jurisdiction in these areas, the decision will not be void but will be considered an irregular exercise of jurisdiction. Although a party has the right to raise the issue, they must do so as soon as possible. Once the court has decided and proceeded with the matter, it cannot be challenged at the appellate stage, as observed in Kiran Singh V. Chaman Paswan^[3],

If the court makes an error regarding subject-matter jurisdiction, any decision made is null and void due to the lack of jurisdiction. This type of error can be brought up at any point in the legal process, including the appellate level.

The purpose of Section 21 is to safeguard honest litigants and prevent them from being harassed while ensuring that court proceedings initiated in good faith are protected, even if the court lacks jurisdiction. Dishonest litigants cannot take advantage of this provision.

Objections to Jurisdiction for Place of Suing: Section 21A

An Appellate or Revisional Court cannot consider an objection regarding the place of suing unless it was raised in the Court of first instance as soon as possible. This applies to situations where issues are settled either at or before the settlement. It is also necessary to prove that there was a failure of justice resulting from the objection.

Conclusion

When filing a lawsuit, it’s important to determine the appropriate court with jurisdiction and venue to resolve the dispute efficiently. This is known as the concept of the place of suing in the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The CPC provides:

Provisions and guidelines to identify the court of competent jurisdiction based on factors such as the case’s nature.
The parties’ geographical location.
The subject matter.

According to Section 15 of the CPC, a suit must be instituted in the court of the lowest grade competent to handle it to prevent overburdening higher courts. Sections 16 to 20 of the CPC clarify specific situations where suits related to immovable property, compensation for wrongs, or other matters should be filed—additionally, Section 18 addresses cases where the local limits of jurisdiction are uncertain.

Therefore, The concept of the place of suing is very important as it helps to determine the jurisdiction of each court. It helps the plaintiff where to file a suit. It saves the time of the court in determining the jurisdiction of the court.

References