Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

Jurisdiction in Civil Suits: A Guide to Section 16-20 of the CPC, Study Guides, Projects, Research of Criminal procedure

A detailed analysis of sections 16-20 of the code of civil procedure (cpc), focusing on the rules governing jurisdiction in civil suits related to immovable property. It examines various scenarios, including suits for recovery, partition, mortgage, torts, and movable property, providing insights into the principles and exceptions that determine the appropriate court for filing a suit. The document also explores the concept of 'cause of action' and its relevance in determining jurisdiction.

Typology: Study Guides, Projects, Research

2023/2024

Uploaded on 09/30/2024

muthuvasan-s-r
muthuvasan-s-r 🇮🇳

1 document

1 / 19

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
1 | Page
pf3
pf4
pf5
pf8
pf9
pfa
pfd
pfe
pff
pf12
pf13

Partial preview of the text

Download Jurisdiction in Civil Suits: A Guide to Section 16-20 of the CPC and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Criminal procedure in PDF only on Docsity!

Table of Contents

  • Table of Contents
  • INTRODUCTION
  • Suit
  • Jurisdiction
  • Institution of Suit: the Provisions under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908:
  • Place of Suing
    • Pecuniary Jurisdiction
    • Section 15 Court in which suits to be instituted
    • Territorial Jurisdiction
    • Section 16 Suits to be instituted where subject matter situate-
    • Section 17: Suits for immovable property situate within jurisdiction of different Courts-
    • uncertain- Section 18: Place of institution of suit where local limits of jurisdiction of Courts are
    • Section 19. Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables-
    • Section 20: Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises-
    • Section 21: Objections to jurisdiction-
  • Conclusion
  • Bibliography

Suit

The word ‘suit’ has wider application. There is a little difference between the suits under the CPC 1908 and the other civil suits. This is under the CPC the suits is instituted by the presentation of the plaint which has particular format and in other suits like the suit for divorce, the same is instituted by mere presentation of the petition by or on behalf of either spouse. It should be mentioned that ‘suit’ is different from the ‘writs’. Suit is instituted to enforce the legal rights (not the political and religious) only; but the ‘writs’ are concerned with the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Part III of the Indian Constitution. Only the High Courts and the Supreme Court have the Writ jurisdiction governed by the Indian Constitution. The term ‘suit’ has not been defined in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. According to Chamber’s 20th Century Dictionary (1983), it is a generic term of comprehensive signification referring to any proceeding by one person or persons against another or others in a court of law wherein the plaintiff pursues the remedy which the law affords him for the redress of any injury or enforcement of a right, whether at law or in equity. In the Black’s Law Dictionary (7th Edition) this term is defined as the proceeding initiated by a party or parties against another in the court of law. According to some other views, ‘suit’ includes appellate proceeding also; but it does not include an execution proceeding. Ordinarily, suit under the CPC is a civil proceeding instituted by the presentation of a plaint^3. (^3) www.legalserviceindia.com

Jurisdiction

The term ‘jurisdiction’ is not defined in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The word is derived from the Latin terms ‘juris’ and ‘dicto’ which means “I speak by the law”. It is interesting to note that the jurisdiction is always granted by the Legislature but the power to determine the jurisdiction vests in the superior Courts. Two meanings of jurisdiction can be analyzed: (i) The authority or power of a court to entertain and decide on any judicial proceeding, (ii) The area over which the power of a court extends^4. By jurisdiction is meant authority by which a Court has to decide matters that are litigated before it, or to take cognizance of matters presented in a formal way for its decisions. The limits of this authority are imposed by Statute or Charters or Commissions under which the Court is instituted and may be extended or restricted by similar means. If no restriction or limitation is imposed, the jurisdiction is said to be unlimited. A limitation may be either as to the kind or nature of the actions or the matters of which a particular Court has cognizance or as to the area over which the jurisdiction extends, or it may partake of both these characteristics. Sometimes jurisdiction is also defined in terms of ‘power’. It is the power of the court to hear and determine a cause, to adjudicate and to exercise judicial power in relation to it and to award the remedies provided by law upon a state of facts proved or admitted and presented to the court in a formal way for its decision. The concept of jurisdiction thus embraces the power to grant the remedies provided by law. Before a court can be held to have jurisdiction to decide a particular matter, it must not only have jurisdiction to try the suit brought but must also have the authority to pass the orders sought for. It is not sufficient that it has come within jurisdiction in relation to the subject matter of the suit. Its jurisdiction must include the power to hear and decide the questions at issue, authority to hear and decide the particular controversy that has arisen between the parties^5. (^4) Justice C.K.Takwani (Thakker), Civil Procedure (CPC) with Limitation Act (8th ed. E.Book 2017). (^5) Avtar Singh, Code of Civil Procedure (4th ed. Cent. Law Publications 2015).

Pecuniary Jurisdiction

Section 15 Court in which suits to be instituted:- Every suit shall be instituted in the

Court of the lowest grade competent to try it. Section 15 refers to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. The word competent to try indicate the competency of the court with respect to the pecuniary jurisdiction. It means, the courts of lowest grade who has the jurisdiction with respect to pecuniary value shall try the suit at first. The object of this provision by requiring a suitor to bring his suit in the court of the lowest grade competent to try it is that courts of higher grades may not be overcrowded with suits. At the same time it does not oust the jurisdiction of the courts of higher grade, but the higher grade court should return the plaint in such cases to the plaintiff to be presented to the court of the lowest grade competent to try it^7. Prima facie , it is the plaintiff’s valuation in the plaint that determines the jurisdiction of the court and not the amount for which ultimately decree may be passed. Thus, if the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court of lowest grade is, say, Rs. 10,000/- and the plaintiff filed a suit for accounts wherein the plaintiff valuation of the suit is well within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court but court latter finds on taking the accounts that Rs. 15,000/- are due, the court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to pass a decree for that amount^8. (^7) D. N. Mathur, Code of Civil Procedure (3rd ed. Cent. Law Publications 2015). (^8) Justice C.K.Takwani (Thakker), Civil Procedure (CPC) with Limitation Act (8th ed. E. Book 2017).

Territorial Jurisdiction

Section 16 Suits to be instituted where subject matter situate- Subject to the

pecuniary or other limitations prescribed by any law, suits- a) For the recovery of immovable property with or without rent or profits, (b) For the partition of immovable property, (c) For foreclosure, sale or redemption in the case of a mortgage of or charge upon immovable property. (d) For the determination of any other right to or interest in immovable property, (e) For compensation for wrong to immovable property. (f) For the recovery of movable property actually under distraint or attachment, shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate: Provided 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. As per Section 16(a) when the suit is for the recovery of immovable property then in such case the suit shall be instituted only at place where the property is situated. Section 16 is applicable only if property is situated within India. If it is situated outside India, then suit will be instituted as per provisions of section 20. If suit is recovery of rent but without the recovery of possession of property then jurisdiction has to be decided as per section 20 not as per section16. In Title Adcon Electronincs Pvt. Ltd. v. Daulat^9 , if suit related only to title of mobvable property then in such case it will not fall within provisions of section 16. It will be governed by rules laid down under section 20. If this relief of rent or title are claimed along with recovery of (^9) (2201) SC 3712

Proviso of this section provides if in cases referred in section 16a-16e court is of opinion that the relief for compensation so claimed can be entirely obtained through personal appearance of defendant then in such case suit can be instituted:- a. Where property is situated, or b. Where defendant actually and voluntarily resides, or c. Where defendant personally works for gain, or d. Where defendant carries on his business. Equity acts in personam: The proviso to the section is an application in a modified form of a maxim of Equity, viz., “Equity acts in personam”. In England the Chancery Courts had and now the Chancery Division of the High Courts of Justice has jurisdiction to entertain certain suits respecting immovable property, though the property might be situate abroad if the relief sought could be obtained through the personal obedience of the defendant. The personal obedience of the defendant could be secured only if the defendant resided within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court or carried on business within those limits. It’s essential feature was that the land in respect of which the suit was brought was situate abroad, but the person of the defendant or his personal property was within the jurisdiction of the court in which the suit was brought. In Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF, Universal Ltd.^11 , Court held that this proviso is based on the maxim of equity that "Equity in personam". If the court is of the opinion that no evidence has to be taken from property and relief can be granted only through personal appearance of parties. Then as per maxim of equity the suit shall be instituted where the parties are. (^11) 2005 SC 4446

Section 17: Suits for immovable property situate within jurisdiction of

different Courts- Where a suit is to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to,

immovable property situate within the jurisdiction of different Court, the suit may be instituted in any Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situate : Provided that, in respect of the value of the subject matter of the suit, the entire claim is cognizable by such Court. Section 17 provides if the property in relation to which suit instituted is situated at different limits of local courts then the suit can be instituted at any of such courts, but subject to pecuniary and subject matter jurisdiction. A suit to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immovable property which is situate within the jurisdiction of different courts may be instituted in any court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situate, provided that in respect of the value of the subject-matter of the suit, the entire claim is cognizable by such court. The object of the section is to avoid multiplicity of suits, but the section is no bar to parties bringing successive suits where the properties are situate in different jurisdictions^12. (^12) Sir Dinshaw Fardunji Mulla, Mulla’s the Code of Civil Procedure (19th ed. Lexis Nexis 2017).

Section 19. Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables- Where a

suit is for compensation for wrong done to the person or to movable property, 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. Illustrations: (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. It has been said that movables follow the person – Mobilia sequuntur personam According to section 19 if suits relates to:

  1. Wrongs done to person
  2. Wrongs done to moveable property Then suit shall be instituted at a place where I. Wrong is committed, or II. Defendant actually and voluntarily resides, or III. Defendant personally works for gain, or IV. Defendant carries on his business. Where such wrong consists of a series of acts, a suit can be filed at any place where any of the acts has been committed. Similarly, where a wrongful act is committed at one place and the consequences ensue at another place, a suit can be instituted at the option of the plaintiff where the action took place or consequences ensued^13. Section 19 does not cover all cases of torts. The torts in relation to immovable property instituted as per section 16 that where property is situated not as per section 19. (^13) Justice C.K.Takwani (Thakker), Civil Procedure (CPC) with Limitation Act (8th ed. E. Book 2017).

In Sabhash Chandra Jain v. Vidyitt Jain,^14 Court held that section 19 only covers the cases of torts in relation to movable and not suits in relation to immovable property. The other suits in relation to movable property are covered under section 16 of Cpc.

Section 20: Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of

action arises- Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in 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 (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. Explanation-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. Section 20 lay down the place of suing in case of suits other than specified in section 16 and section 19. Therefore, section 20 is general provision in relation to place of suing. Section 20 of code has been designated to secure that justice might be brought as near as possible to every man's hearthstone and that the defendant should not be put to the trouble and expense of travelling long distances in order to defend himself in cases in which he may be involved^15.

  1. If the suit relates to disputes referred under section 16a - 16e but property not situated within India then in such case the jurisdiction will be decided as per section 20. (^14) 1978 All. 234 (^15) Laxman Prasad v. Prodigy Electronics Ltd. (2008) 1 SCC 618

In Jeewanti Pandey v. Kisimn Chandra^18 , question before court whether Jail can be considered to be residence of defendant when going under imprisonment? Supreme Court held that the Jail cannot be treated to be residence for the purpose of section 20 because word 'Voluntarily resides' mentioned and jail cannot be considered as voluntarily residence.

Cause of action:

“Cause of action” means the cause or the set of circumstances which leads up to a suit. It may compendiously be defined as being the fact or facts which establish or give rise to a right of action or the existence of which entitles a party to seek redress in a court of law. Where the cause of action is fraud, discovery of fraud is no part of the cause of action. The cause of action must be antecedent to the institution of the suit, and no cause of action can be founded on any allegations made in the proceedings. Every plaint must disclose a cause of action when alone the court will be able to proceed to a determination of the dispute. In ABC Lamnart Private Ltd V AP Agencies^19 , held, the jurisdiction of Court in matter of contract will depend on the situs of contract and Cause of Action arising through connecting factors. Further held, the parties may agree to vest jurisdiction in one of the many competent Court and such Ouster Clause is valid if the clause is explicit , precise and unambiguous and not hit by Ss. 23 and 28 of Indian Contract Act. In case of contract when suit is for its breach or for specific performance of contract, suit can be instituted at following places: I. place where the contract was executed, or II. place where contract Only these two cases are considered to be the places where cause of action arises. (^18) 1982 SC 3 (^19) 1989 SC 1239

Section 21: Objections to jurisdiction- No objection as to the place off suit will be

allowed by an appellate or revisional Court unless the following three conditions are satisfied- (i) The objection was taken in the Court of first instance; (ii) It was taken at the earliest possible opportunity and in cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement; and (iii) There has been a consequent failure of justice; all the above conditions must co-exist. The object underlying section 21 is to protect honest litigants and to avoid harassment to plaintiffs who have bona fide and in good faith initiated proceedings in a court which is later on found to be wanting in jurisdiction. Dishonest litigants cannot take advantage of this provision. It is a fundamental rule that a decree of a court without jurisdiction is 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 give a court jurisdiction if a condition which goes to the root of the jurisdiction has not been performed or fulfilled.” In Kiran Singh V. Chaman Paswan^20 , court held that an error is committed by the court in exercising the jurisdiction with respect to pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction, the decision so given will not be void, it will be considered as irregular exercise of jurisdiction. No doubt, party has a right to raise the issue but at the earliest possible time and once the court proceeded with the matter and given the decision the same cannot be raised at the appellate stage at all. In Hira Lal v. Kali Nath^21 , where the suit which ought to have been filed in an Agra court was filed in the Bombay HC with the leave of the court, it was held that the objection to such jurisdiction falls within section 21 of code. (^20) AIR 1954 SC 340 (^21) AIR 1962 SC 199

Bibliography

BOOKS

  1. Justice C.K.Takwani (Thakker), Civil Procedure (CPC) with Limitation Act (8th ed. E.Book 2017).
  2. Sir Dinshaw Fardunji Mulla, Mulla’s the Code of Civil Procedure (19th ed. Lexis Nexis 2017).
  3. D. N. Mathur, Code of Civil Procedure (3rd ed. Cent. Law Publications 2015).
  4. Avtar Singh, Code of Civil Procedure (4th ed. Cent. Law Publications 2015).

Websites

1. http://www.legalserviceindia.com

2. http://www.scconline.com/

3. https://indiankanoon.org

4. https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com

5. https://definitions.uslegal.com/

6. http://www.legalcrystal.com