WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF A CIVIL SUIT UNDER SECTION 9 OF CPC?

ABSTRACT

The article discusses Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, which forms the backbone of civil justice in India, providing civil courts with jurisdiction over all civil suits unless precluded expressly or by necessary implication. The article further reflects upon the rationale behind the provision being two-fold: to reaffirm the authority of civil courts to adjudicate disputes related to property and office rights while simultaneously enacting limitations that restrict such jurisdiction. The article traces the perimeter of Section 9, ranging through the issues of jurisdiction, suits of a civil nature, applying express and implied bars on civil rights, referencing the leading judicial pronouncements like Dhulabhai v. State of MP and Secretary of State for India v. Mask & Co. It further touches upon preparation on matters to be excluded from its jurisdiction and, therefore, the impact under numerous statutes under that section. This most effectively balances judicial supremacy with legislative willpower in service of access to justice and protection of individual civil rights. The significance, limitations, and judicial interpretations will find a place in the structure of this article that firmly predisposes Section 9 to be the vital determinant for thorough formulation of the civil adjudication in India and establishment of the rule of law.

Keywords

Section 9,Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), Jurisdiction, Implied, Express, Justice

INTRODUCTION

Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, is a piece of fundamental legislation which defines the jurisdiction of civil courts in India, thereby giving power to civil courts to entertain right to bring a suit of a civil nature. The same rules may apply to suits concerning Seventh Eyes Matter unless legislative restrictions on jurisdiction- power exist. The provision reflects that civil courts are courts of plenary jurisdiction, having the authority to decide disputes unless such authority is expressly curtailed by law. Section 9 really shows the need for a forum whereby citizens could bring actions for the enforcement of their civil rights.

Section 9 essentially bifurcates into two parts; first, it allows for determination relating to a right concerning property or office; Secondly, the use introduces certain restrictions or limitations upon the jurisdiction of civil courts, as would exclude certain suits expressly or impliedly barred. This ensures the civil courts to exercise their jurisdiction on behalf of particular causes.

Section 9 has been one of the most debated provisions; it has greatly influenced its interpretation by various courts. It has been established that a suit is a suit of civil nature if it involves the determination of a civil right, everyone recognizes parties concerned and even more whether the subject matter entails a complicated question involving an equation of rights compelling active competition. Another function of the provision is to furnish a safeguard from administrative injustice, allowing civil courts to intervene in the case where adequate statutory remedies are lacking or there is some compromise on procedural fairness. While Section 9 effectively works towards safeguarding the right of access to justice, it has its own set of limitations that renders the provision flexible in approach to certain issues deciding jurisdiction on civil matters, which is often judged in public policy.

SECTION 9 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) grants the court the authority to hear all civil suits, except those expressly or impliedly barred. This is explained in two parts i.e., a suit contested for property or office rights is considered a civil suit, despite the possibility of religious rites or ceremonies. The court’s jurisdiction is limited to two conditions; firstly, the suit must be civil and secondly, its cognizance should not have been explicitly or implicitly barred. Section 9 of the CPC is open to interpretation by courts, but has been read to broaden the court’s jurisdiction. Many statutes, including the CPC, expressly bar jurisdiction in specific lawsuits, but the implied bar is observed when it is against public policy or if the statute provides a specific remedy. Despite being expressly or implicitly excluded from Section 9, a civil court retains jurisdiction for administrative justice objectives like fairness and natural justice.[1]

SCOPE OF SECTION 9 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction is the power of a court to decide a case or issue a decree. It is defined as the power of a court to not only try the suit but also pass orders or decrees related to it. In 1928, the Calcutta High Court explained the meaning of jurisdiction in the case of Hriday Nath Ray v. Akhil Chandra Roy[2], which demarcated three categories of jurisdictions: subject matter jurisdiction, pecuniary jurisdiction, and territorial jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction states whether the court has the authority to try the subject matter in question, while pecuniary jurisdiction refers to the financial limitations that courts must adhere to avoid burdening higher courts and extend assistance to parties. Territorial jurisdiction, also known as local jurisdiction, lays down the geographical limits of a court’s authority, ensuring clarity and specificity. Jurisdictions are also divided on the basis of “original” and “appellate jurisdiction” or “exclusive” and “concurrent jurisdiction.” Jurisdiction is decided based on the allegations made in the complaint, and an order passed by a court lacking jurisdiction is nullified and unenforceable by law. Civil courts are governed by the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which is procedural law, with jurisdiction dealt with under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.[3]

Suits of Civil Nature

Civil refers to rights and remedies sought by action, excluding criminal suits and involving private individuals. Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) states that all civil courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature, except those expressly or impliedly barred. This means that a court cannot try any matter not of civil nature. Suits of civil nature are presented before a civil court for adjudication, specifically to determine property or office rights. The landmark case, Sankar Narayan Potti v. K Sreedevs[4], established that civil courts have inherited jurisdiction in all types of civil disputes, unless a part of jurisdiction is carved out by any statutory provision conferred on another tribunal or authority.[5]

Expressly or Impliedly Barred

A suit is either expressly barred or impliedly barred. A suit is barred by an enactment for the time being in force, allowing a competent legislature to bar jurisdiction of civil courts with respect to a particular class of suits of a civil nature. This is done provided that the legislature maintains its field of legislation and does not contravene any provision of the Constitution. Impliedly barred suits are those barred by general principles of law, where a statute provides a specific remedy, depriving the person of a remedy of any other form. Even civil lawsuits are excluded from being heard in a civil court due to public policy reasons. A suit is impliedly barred when it is excluded by general principles of law, as a specific remedy provided by statute denies a person a different form of remedy.[6]

Relevant Rights under the Section

The Section covers three key rights: the right to property, which includes movable, immovable, intellectual, and inheritable property, and the right to office, which includes the right to acquire and exercise a position in any job or religion. The right to religion has also been declared as a civil right, despite the fact that a suit primarily involving a religion or caste does not belong to a civil nature. However, if the adjudication incidentally involves a dispute relating to caste or religious rites and ceremonies, the suit does not immediately cease to be of a civil nature. This has sparked controversy and debate in the legal system.[7]

EXCLUSION OF JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction refers to the authority conferred by law upon a court, tribunal, or judge to decide disputes between parties or pass judgments or orders. The exclusion of jurisdiction means prevention or prohibition to the court not to entertain or try any matter though the dispute is civil in nature. This exclusion can be clear and not inferred. Even when the jurisdiction is expressly or impliedly barred, it cannot be said that it is barred altogether. A court has jurisdiction to examine whether the provisions of the Act have been complied with, or whether the order is contrary to law, mala fide, ultra vires, arbitrary, etc. In all these cases, the order cannot be said to be “under the Act” but is dehorns. Civil courts are not entirely barred from exercising their jurisdiction. They can exercise their jurisdiction to examine whether the provisions of the Act have been complied with, or whether the order is contrary to law, mala fide, ultra vires, arbitrary, etc. In all these cases, the order cannot be said to be “under the Act” but is dehorns.[8]

Exclusive bar on jurisdiction can occur in two ways: suits expressly barred and suits based solely on Directive Principles of State Policy as incorporated in the Constitution of India. Suits based on Directive Principles of State Policy are not maintainable, and political questions relating to policies are not covered under the expression “civil rights.” However, a suit for correction in the date of birth in service record relates to civil right and is maintainable in a civil court. Some acts with express bar on civil court’s jurisdiction include the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, Indian Electricity Act, 2003, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Copyright Act, 1957, Payment of Wages Act, 1936, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Constitution of India 1950. Other acts that expressly bar the civil court’s jurisdiction include Canon Law, Delhi School Education Act, Public Premises Act, Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, Land Acquisition Act, Displaced Persons Act, Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, Bombay Rents Act, Tripura Public Demand Recovery Act, and Enemy Property Act.[9]

Suits impliedly barred are those where both right and remedy have been created Uno Flatu, even if there is no express provision excluding the jurisdiction of civil courts. It is further established that if an Act creates an obligation and enforces its performance in a certain manner, such performance cannot be enforced in any other way. Certain civil matters are barred from civil courts on the principles of public policy and public weal.[10]

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF EXCLUSION OF JURISDICTION

The Supreme Court’s decisions on jurisdiction of a civil court outline general principles. A civil court has jurisdiction to try all civil suits unless their cognizance is explicitly or implicitly barred. Consent cannot confer or take away jurisdiction. A decree without jurisdiction is a nullity, which can be challenged at any stage of the proceedings. There is a contrast between a lack of jurisdiction and an irregular exercise of it. Each court has inherent power to decide its own jurisdiction. Jurisdiction depends on the averments made in a plaint, not the defense in a written statement. The substance of a matter is important for deciding jurisdiction. A statute ousting jurisdiction must be strictly construed. The burden of proof of exclusion of jurisdiction lies with the party asserting it. Even when jurisdiction is barred, a civil court can still decide if an act’s provisions have been complied with or an order was passed without law.[11]

JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS

The Dhulabhai vs State of MP[12] case involved tobacco merchants in Ujjain who were required to pay sales taxes solely for dealers whose sales or supplies of products exceeded 12,000 in the preceding year. The Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act (Act 30 of 1950) was introduced in Madhya Pradesh on May 1, 1950, and set the minimum and maximum tax rates. However, the government did not set the actual tax rates, and the tax was collected in various amounts from the appellant for different quarters by the authorities. The appellant served notices under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, which states that no litigation may be brought against a government or public officer in their official position until a two-month notice period has passed. This prohibition is inapplicable in cases where the fundamental rules of judicial procedure have been disobeyed.[13]

When there is an express bar of the court’s jurisdiction, a review of the bar of a jurisdiction scheme of a specific statute is required to discover an appropriate remedy. However, civil court jurisdiction is not required when the terms of specific acts are declared illegal or the constitutionality of any word is called into question. A writ of certiorari on the basis of reimbursement may be filed, although no pay for the litigation is necessary. Prohibitions of jurisdiction cannot take place until these provisions are inferred by the court.[14]

The Secretary of State for India vs. Mask And Co.[15] case involved the importation of betel-nuts by sea from Java to Pondicherry and then by rail to Panruti by the respondents. The Collector rejected an appeal against this judgement, and Indian government upheld the Collector’s decision in Revision. The respondents brought a civil lawsuit to recoup their overpayment, but the subordinate judge ruled that the court had no competence to proceed. The High Court granted an appeal, and the subordinate judge was directed to decide the case on the merits. The appellant contended that the Assistant Collector’s ruling constituted a “decision or order passed by an Officer of Customs” under Section 188 of the Sea Customs Act, which was incorporated into the Land Customs Act. The respondents claimed that the Section 188 decisions or orders only applied to Section 182 adjudications. The landmark judgement delivered by the Privy Council ruled that jurisdiction cannot be determined only on the basis of inferences, and the court should have sole jurisdiction over the case. It concluded that, even if jurisdiction has been overtly or implicitly waived, the court has the authority to hear arguments on the merits of the case.[16]

CONCLUSION

Section 9 of CPC defines and grants jurisdiction to civil courts in India and can thus be said to be one of the most important provisions of the Code. This section gives the court the jurisdiction to entertain all civil matters unless expressly or impliedly barred, with the view of providing understanding and wide dispensation of civil justice. This section ensures that an individual can seek a redress of his grievance for any violation of his civil right, be it with respect to a property dispute or an office entitlement or even a religious issue so long as it possesses a civil element.

But this jurisdiction has some limitations. The law appreciates certain limitations, either expressly on the face of the legislative provisions or implicitly arising from settled legal principles and public policy considerations. These restrictions would ensure that civil courts do not trespass upon matters that ought to be disposed of through other forms of dispute resolution mechanisms or before specialized tribunals created by the legislature. Furthermore, the courts have continuously emphasized that it is all about examining the substance and not merely the form of the suit in order to find out whether or not it is maintainable under Section 9. This principle ensures that litigants do not camouflage non-civil disputes as civil suits simply to attract the jurisdiction of the court.

REFERENCES

LAWBHOOMI, https://lawbhoomi.com/section-9-of-civil-procedure-code/ (last visited 26 Jan, 2025)
A.N. SAHA, THE CODE OD CIVIL PROCEDURE (8^th ed. 2019)
M.P. TANDON, CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ( 1^st ed. 2016)
LAW WIRE, https://lawwire.in/section-9-of-the-civil-procedure-code/?noamp=available (last visited 26 Jan, 2025)
LEGAL SERVICE INDIA, http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/508/Jurisdiction-Of-Civil-Court-Under-Civil-Procedure-Code.html (last visited 26 Jan, 2025)
IPLEADERS, https://blog.ipleaders.in/concept-inherent-jurisdiction-section-9-civil-procedure-code-1908/ (last visited 26 Jan, 2025)

[1] Section 9 CPC, LAWBHOOMI (last visited 26 Jan, 2025, 12:30 PM), https://lawbhoomi.com/section-9-of-civil-procedure-code/

[2] Hriday Nath Ray v. Akhil Chandra Roy, AIR 1929 CAL 445

[3] Shoronya Banerjee, An in-depth analysis of Section 9 of CPC, IPLEADERS (last visited 26 Jan, 2025, 2:45 PM), https://blog.ipleaders.in/an-in-depth-analysis-of-section-9-of-the-cpc/

[4] Sankar Narayan Potti v. K Sreedevs, AIR 1998 SUPREME COURT 1808

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, LAW WIRE (last visited 26 Jan, 2025, 3:05 PM), https://lawwire.in/section-9-of-the-civil-procedure-code/?noamp=available

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1969 SC 78.

[13] Section 9 CPC, LAWBHOOMI (last visited 26 Jan, 2025, 5: 07 PM), https://lawbhoomi.com/section-9-of-civil-procedure-code/

[14] Ibid.

[15] Secretary of State for India v. Mask And Co., AIR 1939 MADRAS 95

[16] Ibid.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.