1

Place of suing under CPCA detailed analysis

Submitted to:
Ms. Apurva Verma [Faculty of CPC]

Hidayatullah National Law University

Submitted by: Lucky Rajpurohit

Semester IX
Submission Date:

Acknowledgements
I would like to take this opportunity as a very proud person to express my elation over having
had an opportunity to work on as interesting a topic as Place of suing under CPC.
First and foremost I would like to acknowledge Ms. Apurva Verma, Assistant Lecturer (Law),
H.N.L.U., for the allocation of the topic. I would also like to acknowledge her academic
contributions of primarily made through discussions, consultations and lectures throughout the
course of CPC. Furthermore, Ms. Apurva Verma imparted invaluable suggestions as to the
objectives, nature of study and analyses, which could be taken up for the purpose of completing this
study.

Secondly, I would like to acknowledge the institution of Hidayatullah National Law University,
Raipur, of which I am a student, inter alia for its library catalogue.
And last but not the least; I would like to thank my Parents for providing me with their blessings
and all financial help that I needed without which I would never be able to complete my project.

1|Page

List of Abreviations and Acronyms

1 AIRALL INDIA REPORTER
2 CHAP. CHAPTER
3 ED. EDITOR
4 EDS.EDITORS
5 NO.NUMBER
6

PAGE

PP.

PAGES

8 SC SUPREME COURT [OF INDIA]

9 SCC SUPREME COURT CASES
10 US UNITED STATES [OF AMERICA]
11 V VERSUS
12 VOL VOLUME

Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS....i
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONSii
CONTENTS...iii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION....1
Research Methodology.. 2
Objectives.. 2
Nature of Study. 2
Sources of Data.. 2

6. CHAPTER 2: TYPES .....3

2|Page

7. CHAPTER 3:SEC 9 OF CPC..6

8. CHAPTER 4: TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION..12
9. CHAPTER 5: JURISDICTION AND CAUSE OF ACTION...14
10. CHAPTER 6: PECUNIARY JURISDICTION.19
11. CONCLUSION..21
12. BIBLIOGRAPHY..23

3|Page

Chapter I: Introduction
The term jurisdiction is derived from the Latin ius, iuris meaning "law" and dicere meaning
"to speak". It is the practical authority to interpret and apply the law, or to govern and legislate. It
is granted to a formally constituted legal body, such as a court, or to a political leader. It grants
authority to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to
administer justice. Jurisdiction has defined areas of responsibility. Areas of jurisdiction apply to
local, state, and federal levels, e.g. the court has jurisdiction to apply federal law.
Jurisdiction draws its substance from public international law, conflict of laws, constitutional law
and the powers of the executive and legislative branches of government to allocate resources to
best serve the needs of its native society. The District Court or Additional District court exercises
jurisdiction both on original and appellate side in civil and criminal matters arising in the
District. The territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction in civil matters is usually set in concerned state
enactments on the subject of civil courts. On the criminal side jurisdiction is almost exclusively
derived from code of criminal procedure. This code sets the maximum sentence that a district
court may award which currently is capital punishment.
The rationale behind introducing the concept of jurisdiction in law is that a court should be able
to try and adjudicate only in those matters with which it has some connection or which fall
within the geographical or political or pecuniary limits of its authority. A 1921 Calcutta High
Court judgment in the case of Hriday Nath Roy v. Ram Chandra1 sought to explain the meaning
of the term jurisdiction in a great detail. The bench observed:
An examination of the cases in the books discloses numerous attempts to define the term
jurisdiction, which has been stated to be the power to hear and determine issues of law and
fact; the authority by which three judicial officers take cognizance of and decide cause; the
authority to hear and decide a legal controversy; the power to hear and determine the subjectmatter in controversy between parties to a suit and to adjudicate or exercise any judicial power
1
1|Page

over them; the power to hear, determine and pronounce judgment on the issues before the
Court; the power or authority which is conferred upon a Court by the Legislature to hear and
determine causes between parties and to carry the judgments into effect; the power to enquire
into the facts, to apply the law, to pronounce the judgment and to carry it into execution.
In modern days, in almost every legal systems the civil disputes are resolved by the courts of
civil jurisdiction. As a rule, the civil courts can take cognizance of every controversy of civil
nature as the court of ultimate jurisdiction but there are some recognized exceptions to this
general rule which is to be discussed through this paper

Research Methodology

Objectives
To study the different types of jurisdiction of courts under CPC.
To analyse the places of suing under CPC.

Nature of Study
The nature of the current study encompasses a doctrinal research based upon descriptive and
analytical methods of research.

Sources of Data
Secondary sources of data, such as books and academic articles, have been used in the
completion of the current study. The specific material cited herein are elaborated subsequently.

2|Page

Chapter II: Types

In India, courts are hierarchically established. The lower courts have less
powers than the higher or superior courts. The Supreme Court of India is at
the top of the hierarchy. There are numerous lower courts but only one High
Court per State and only one Supreme Court in the Country. Thus, it is
impractical to move superior courts for each and every trivial matter. Further,
the subject matter of a suit can also be of several kinds. It may be related to
either movable or immovable property, or it may be about marriage, or
employment. Thus, specialist Courts are set up to deal with the specific
nature of the suit to deal with it efficiently. Similarly, it would be inconvenient
for the parties to approach a court that is too far or is in another state. All
these factors are considered to determine the court in which a particular suit
can be filed. CPC lays down the rules that determine whether a court has
jurisdiction to hear a particular matter or not.
In India, there are mainly 5 types of jurisdiction, which can be classified as
follows:
i.

Subject-matter jurisdiction:

It can be defined as the authority vested in a court of law to try and hear
cases of a particular type and pertaining to a particular subject matter. For
example, District Forums established under the Consumer Protection Act,
1986 have jurisdiction over only consumer-related cases. It cannot try
criminal cases.
ii.

Territorial jurisdiction:

Under this type of jurisdiction, geographical limits of a courts authority are

clearly delineated and specified. It cannot exercise authority beyond that
territorial/geographical limit. For example, if a certain offence is committed in
Madhya Pradesh, only the courts of law within the boundaries of Madhya
3|Page

Pradesh can try and adjudicate upon the same unless otherwise provided for
in a particular piece of legislation.

iii.

Pecuniary jurisdiction:

Pecuniary means related to money. Pecuniary jurisdiction tries to address

whether a court of law can try cases and suits of the monetary value/amount
of the case or suit in question. For example, consumer courts have different
pecuniary jurisdictions. A district forum can try cases of value up to twenty
lakh rupees only.
iv.

Original jurisdiction:

It refers to the authority of a court to take cognizance of cases, which can be

tried and adjudicated upon, in those courts in the first instance itself. It is
different from appellate jurisdiction in the sense that in case of the latter, the
courts rehear and review an already decided matter whereas in case of the
former the cases are tried for the very first time. For example, the High Court
of

Allahabad

has

original

jurisdiction

with

respect

to

matrimonial,

testamentary, probate and company matters.

v.

Appellate jurisdiction:

It refers to the authority of a court to rehear or review a case that has

already been decided by a lower court. Appellate jurisdiction is generally
vested in higher courts. In India, both the High Courts and the Supreme
Court have appellate jurisdiction to hear matters which are brought in the
form of appeal before them. They can either overrule the judgment of the
lower court or uphold it. At times they can also modify the sentence.

4|Page

Some of the other types of jurisdiction include:

Concurrent jurisdiction: A situation in which more than one court of law

has the jurisdiction to try certain matters. Sometimes, this type of

jurisdiction is also referred to as co-ordinate jurisdiction.

Admiralty jurisdiction: Jurisdiction pertaining to mercantile

maritime law and cases.

Probate jurisdiction: Matters concerning the administration of an estate

and

belonging to a dead person and its guardianship come under probate

jurisdiction. For example, cases involving administration and execution

of the will of a deceased person.

Summary jurisdiction: It refers to the authority of a court to try matters
in accordance with the summary procedure. Such cases take form of
summary trials in order to speedily resolve a dispute.

In general sense and also in legal diction, jurisdiction means, "to hear and
determine a cause applying judicial powers in relation to it." So jurisdiction
can be termed as to decide a particular causes of action/dispute of civil
nature where the competent court having right to hear and determine it,
disposes of the issue/dispute acting under its judicial powers.
In case of Official Trustee v. Sachindra Nath Chatterjee,2 after referring to
various decisions, the Supreme Court observed, "jurisdiction must include
the power to hear and decide the issue/ dispute, the authority to hear and
decide the particular controversy that has arisen between the parties."

2 AIR 1969 SC 823: (1969) 3 SCR 92.

5|Page

Chapter III: Section 9 of CPC, 1908

Section 9 of CPC deals with the jurisdiction of civil courts in India. It says that the courts shall
(subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature
excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.
Explanation I- a suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit or a civil
nature, notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of questions as to
religious rites or ceremonies.
Explanation II- for the purpose of this section, it is immaterial whether or not any fees are
attached to the office referred to in explanation I or whether or not such office is attached to a
particular place.
Conditions
A civil court has jurisdiction to try a suit if two conditions are fulfilled:
The suit must be of a civil nature; and the cognizance of such a suit should not have been
expressly or impliedly barred.
a) SUIT OF CIVIL NATURE
i. Meaning: in order that a civil court may have jurisdiction to try a suit, the first condition which
must be satisfied is that the suit must be of a civil nature? The word civil has not been defined
in the code. But according to the dictionary meaning, it pertains to private rights and remedies of
a citizen as distinguished from criminal, political, etc. the word naturehas been defined as the
fundamental qualities of a person or thing; identity or issential character; sort, kind, character.
It is thus wider in content. The expression civil nature is wider than the expression civil
proceedings. Thus, a suit is of a civil is of a nature if the principal question therein relates to the
determination of a civil right and enforcement thereof. It is not the status of the parties to the suit,
but the subject matter of it, which determines whether or not the suit is of a civil nature.

6|Page

ii. Nature and scope: the expression suit of a civil nature will cover private rights and
obligations of a citizen. Political and religious questions are not covered by that expression. A
suit in which the principal question relates to caste or religion is not a suit of a civil nature. But if
the principal question in a suit is of a civil nature (the right to property or to an office) and the
adjudication incidentally involves the determination relating to a caste question or to religious
rights and ceremonies, it does not cease to be a suit of a civil nature and the jurisdiction of a civil
court is not barred. The court has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon those questions also in order to
decide the principal question which is of a civil nature. Explanation II has been added by the
amendment act of 1976. before this explanation, there was a divergence of judicial opinion as to
whether a suit relating to a religious office to which no fees or emoluments were attached can be
said to be a suit of a civil nature. But the legal position has now been clarified by explanation II
which specifically provides that a suit relating to a religious office is maintainable whether or not
it carries any fees or whether or not it is attached to a particular place.
iii. Doctrine explained: explaining the concept of jurisdiction of civil courts under section 9, in
PMA Metropolitan v. M.M. Marthoma3, the supreme court stated:
the expensive nature of the section is demonstrated by use of phraseology both positive and
negative. The earlier part opens the door widely and latter debars entry to only those which are
expressly or impliedly barred. The two explanations, one existing from inception and later added
in 1976, bring out clearly the legislative intention of extending operation of the section to
religious matters where right to property or office is involved irrespective of whether any fee is
attached to the office or not. The language used is simple but explicit and clear. It is structured on
the basic of a civilized jurisprudence that absence of machinery for enforcement of right renders
it nugatory. The heading which is normally a key to the section brings out unequivocally that all
civil suits are cognizable unless bared. What is meant by it is explained further by widening the
ambit of the section by use of the word shall and the expression all suits of a civil nature unless
expressly or impliedly barred.

3 1995 SCC Supl. (4) 286

7|Page

Each word and expression casts an obligation on the court to exercise jurisdiction for
enforcement of rights. The word shall makes it mandatory. No court can refuse to entertain a suit
if it is of the description mentioned in the section. That is amplified by the use of the expression.
all suits of civil nature. The word civil according to the dictionary means, relating to the citizen
as an individual; civil rights. In Blacks legal dictionary it is defined as, relating to provide
rights and remedies sought by civil actions as contrasted with criminal proceedings. In law it is
understood as an antonym of criminal. Historically the two broad classifications were civil and
criminal. Revenue, tax and company etc. were added to it later. But they too pertain to the larger
family of civil. There is thus no doubt about the width of the word civil. Its width has been
stretched further by using the word nature along with it. That is even those suits are cognizable
which are not only civil but are even of civil nature.
The word nature has defined as the fundamental qualities of a person or thing; identity or
essential character, sort;kind;character. It is thus wider in content. The word civil nature is
wider that the word civil proceeding. The section would, therefore, be available in every case
where the dispute was of the characteristics of affecting ones rights which are not only civil but
of civil nature.
iv. Test: a suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of a civil
nature, notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of a question as to
religious rites or ceremonies.
v. Suits of civil nature: illustrations- the following are suits of a civil nature.
1. Suits relating to rights to property;
2. Suits relating to rights of worship;
3. Suits relating to taking out of religious procession;
4. Suits relating to right to share in offerings;
5. Suits for damages for civil wrongs;
6. Suits for specific performance of contracts or for damages for breach of contracts;

8|Page

7. Suits for specific reliefs;

8. Suits for restitution of conjugal rights;
9. Suits for dissolution of marriages;
10. Suits for rent;
11. Suits for or on account;
12. Suits for rights of franchise;
13. Suits for rights to hereditary offices;
14. Suits for rights to Yajmanvritis;
15. Suits against wrongful dismissal from service and for salaries, etc.

vi. Suits not of civil nature- illustrations- the following are not suits of a civil nature:
1. Suits involving principally caste questions;
2. Suits involving purely religious rites or ceremonies;
3. Suits for upholding mere dignity or honor;
4. Suits for recovery of voluntary payments or offerings;
5. Suits against expulsions from caste, etc.

b. COGNIZANCE NOT BARRED

As stated above, a litigant having a grievance of a civil nature has a right to institute a civil suit
unless its cognizance is barred, either expressly or impliedly.
i. Suits expressly barred- a suit is said to be expressly barred when it is barred by any
enactment for the time being in force. It is open to a competent legislature to bar jurisdiction of
9|Page

civil courts with respect to a particular class of suits of a civil nature, provided that, in doing so,
it keeps itself within the field of legislation conferred on it and does not contravene any provision
of the constitution.
But every presumption should be made in favor of the jurisdiction of a civil court and the
provision of exclusion of jurisdiction of a court must be strictly construed. If there is any doubt
about the ousting of jurisdiction of a civil court, the court will lean to an interpretation which
would maintain the jurisdiction. Thus, matters falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of revenue
courts or under the code of criminal procedure or matters dealt with by special tribunals under
the relevant statutes, e.g. by industrial tribunal, income tax tribunal, revenue tribunal, electronic
tribunal, rent tribunal, cooperative tribunal, motor accident claims tribunal, etc. or by domestic
tribunals, e.g. Bar Council, Medical Council, university, club etc. are expressly barred from the
cognizance of a civil court. But if the remedy provided by a statute is not adequate and all
questions cannot be decided by a special tribunal, the jurisdiction of a civil court is not barred.
Similarly, when a court of limited jurisdiction prima facie and incidentally states something, the
jurisdiction of a civil court to finally decide the time is not ousted.
ii. Suits impliedly barred- a suit is said to be impliedly barred when it is barred by general
principles of law.
Where a specific remedy is given by a statute, it thereby deprives the person who insists upon a
remedy of any other form than that given by the statute. Where an act creates an obligation and
enforces its performance in a specified manner, that performance cannot be enforced in any other
manner.
Similarly, certain suits, though of a civil nature, are barred from thee cognizance of a civil court
on the ground of public policy. the principle underlying is that a court ought not to countenance
matters which are injurious to and against the public weal. Thus, no suit shall lie for recovery of
costs incurred in criminal prosecution or for enforcement of a right upon a contract hit by section
23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872; or against any judge for acts done in the course of his duties.
Likewise, political questions belong to the domain of public administrative law and are outside
the jurisdiction of civil courts. A civil court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon disputes of a
political nature.
10 | P a g e

WHO MAY DECIDE?

It is well settled that a civil court has inherited power to decide its own jurisdiction.
PRESUMPTION AS TO JURISDICTION
In dealing with the question whether a civil courts jurisdiction to entertain a suit is barred or
not, it is necessary to bear in mind that every presumption should be made in favor of the
jurisdiction of a civil court. The exclusion of jurisdiction of a civil court to entertain civil causes
should not be readily inferred unless the relevant statute contains an express provision to that
effect,

or

leads

to

necessary

and

inevitable

implication

of

the

nature.

BURDEN OF PROOF
It is well settled that it is for the party who seeks to oust the jurisdiction of a civil court to
establish it. It is equally well settled that a statute ousting the jurisdiction of a civil court must be
strictly construed. Where such a contention is raised, it has to be determined in the light of the
words used in the statute, the scheme of the relevant provisions and the object and purpose of the
enactment. In the case of a doubt as to jurisdiction, the court should lean towards the assumption
of jurisdiction. A civil court has inherent power to decide the question of its own jurisdiction;
although as a result of such inquiry it may turn out that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Chapter IV: Territorial Jurisdiction

Every Litigant before proceeding with his/her claim is faced with one common perplexing
question as to which court shall have the territorial jurisdiction to hear and finally adjudicate the
dispute. The law contained in Constitution, Civil and Criminal Code and statues on various
subject matters clearly provide and demarcate jurisdiction of the courts but in spite of the same,
the common issue that often arises before the court is in regard to territorial jurisdiction of
courts.

11 | P a g e

This articles aims to briefly describe the law governing territorial jurisdiction of courts. Before
proceeding further, it is essential to understand the meaning of the term jurisdiction to understand
the law governing territorial jurisdiction. Jurisdiction of court refers to power of the court to deal
with the matter and render a decision for the resolution of matter. Jurisdiction of every court is on
three counts i.e. Subject matter, Pecuniary and Territorial.
Territorial jurisdiction refers to power of the court to inquire and proceed with the trial of matter
that is presented before it. The following is brief description of the law on territorial jurisdiction.
Territorial Jurisdiction of Indian Civil Courts:
Every civil suit in regard to recovery/partition/sale, mortgage or redemption/determination of any
right or claim/compensation for wrong to immovable property or for recovery of movable
property shall be instituted in the court of law within whose local limits the property is situated.
In case, the suit is directed to obtain relief or compensation in respect to the property held by
defendant then, the suit may be instituted either in the court within whose local limits the
property is situated or within whose jurisdiction the defendant resides or carries on business.
Section 20 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) provides that for any suit, every plaintiff may
file a suit in the court of law within whose local limits the defendant/opponent against whom
claim arises voluntarily resides or carries on his business or is gainfully employed. The section
further provides that the suit may also be filed in a court within whose local limits the whole or
part of cause of action arose. This is the basic principal of law that the suit are generally filed in
court of law within whose jurisdiction the whole or a part of cause of action arises. Causes of
action are the facts in regard to claim, relief that gives the plaintiff the right to bring a legal
action.
The CPC further provides in case of more than one defendant, the suit can be instituted in any
court within whose jurisdiction any of the defendants resides or carries on business. A suit can be
filed only after obtaining leave of the court or by way of other defendants acquiescing it.
The law also provides that in case, the property is situated within the jurisdiction of more than
one court then, the plaintiff may file the suit in either of the court within whose jurisdiction any
portion of the property is situated.
12 | P a g e

Chapter V: Juridiction and Cause of

Action
Sections 15 to 20 deal with place of suing. Section 15 provides that every suit shall be instituted
in the Court of lowest grade competent to try it. Section 16 provides for institution of the suit
where subject matters are situated. Section 17 provides that suit shall be instituted for immovable
property situate within the jurisdiction of different Courts. Section 18 deals with the place of
institution of a suit where local limits of jurisdictions of Courts are uncertain. Section 19
provides for institution of suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movable property.
Section 20 provides for institution of the suits not covered by earlier provisions where defendants
reside or cause of action arises.
Conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function and it can neither be conferred with the
consent of the parties nor by a superior court and if a court having no jurisdiction passes a decree
over the matter, it would amount to a nullity, as the matter by-passes the correct route of
jurisdiction. Such an issue can be raised even at a belated stage in execution. The finding of a
court or Tribunal becomes irrelevant and unenforceable/inexecutable once the forum is found to
have no jurisdiction. Acquiescence of parties cannot confer jurisdiction upon a court and an
erroneous interpretation equally should not be permitted to perpetuate or perpetrate, defeating the
legislative intention. The Court cannot derive jurisdiction apart from the Statute. No amount of
waiver or consent can confer jurisdiction on the Court if it inherently lacks it or if none exists.
JURISDICTION:
(a) Territorial Jurisdiction: Dabur India v. K.R. Industries 4. Apex Court held that composite suit
for passing off & copyright infringement cannot be filed at a place where plaintiff resides or
carries on business etc.
(b) Territorial Jurisdiction specified in contract case. M/s Ass. Rubber Prod. v. M/s Harry &
Jenny & Ors.5 held that jurisdiction of Court specified in contract can safely be presumed.
Absence of words like along only excluded would be irrelevant.
4 (2008) 10 SCC 595
13 | P a g e

(c) Exclusion of jurisdiction: United India Ins. v. Ajay Sinha,6 excluding jurisdiction of civil
courts & conferring it on authorities or Tribunals should be strictly construed.....
(d) Arbitration clause vis--vis Civil Jurisdiction - Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.
Ambika Ent.7 held that section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 being a special provision, would
prevail over Section 9 of CPC.
In AVN Tubes Ltd. v. Shishiu Mehta 8, the High Court in revision, held that trial court had no
jurisdiction. Apex Court directed trial court to decide the issue without being influenced by the
observations made by trial court or High Court in revision.
In Subodh Kumar Gupta v. Shrikant Gupta & Ors.,9 , the Supreme Court considered a case
wherein a partnership firm having its registered office at Bombay and factory at Mandsore. Two
partners - defendants were residing at Mandsore while the third partner-plaintiff shifted to
Chandigarh and an agreement had been drawn up between the partners at Bhilai for dissolution
of the firm and distribution of assets. The suit was filed by the plaintiff in the Court at
Chandigarh for dissolution of the firm and rendition of account on the ground that the defendants
at Mandsore misappropriated partnerships fund and the aforesaid agreement was void and liable
to be ignored. The Court held that in view of the provisions of Section 20 of CPC, suit can be
entertained in a place where cause of action had arisen fully or partly. The mere bald allegation
by the plaintiff for the purpose of creating jurisdiction would not be enough to confer jurisdiction
or allege that the agreement was void would not be enough unless the agreement was set-aside
by the competent court. The court must find out by examining the provisions carefully, as to
5 (2008) AIHC 2754
6 (2008) 7 SCC 454
7 (2008) AIHC 619
8 (2008) 3 SCC 572
9 (1993) 4 SCC 1
14 | P a g e

whether the suit can be entertained by it. Generally, cause of action would arise at the place
where the defendant resides, actually and voluntarily, or carries on business or personally works
for gain or the cause of action arises wholly or in part.
In Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu & Ors.,10, the Supreme Court considered
the provisions of Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which provides for
territorial jurisdiction of the High Courts. The Apex Court held that while deciding the territorial
jurisdiction of the Court, within which the cause of action, wholly or partly, arises, the facts must
first be decided. It must also be ascertained which facts are true and the other facts must be
disregarded, because the facts form integral part of the cause of action. In the said case, facts
involved were that ONGC decided to set-up a Kerosene Processing Unit at Hajaria (Gujarat).
EIL was appointed by the ONGC as its consultant and in that capacity, EIL issued advertisement
from New Delhi calling for tenders and this advertisement was printed and published in all
leading news papers in the country including The Times of India in circulation in West Bengal.
In response to which tenders or bids were forwarded to EIL at New Delhi, which were
scrutinized and finalized by the ONGC at New Delhi. However, the writ petition had been filed
in the Calcutta High Court challenging the acceptance of tenders of the other party. Before the
Supreme Court, it was contended that the Calcutta High Court had no jurisdiction as no cause of
action had arisen, even partly, in its territorial jurisdiction. Mere communication to any person at
a particular place or publication or reading of the news or notice etc. does not confer jurisdiction.
After examining the facts of that case, the Apex Court came to the conclusion that the Calcutta
High Court lacked jurisdiction.
In Aligarh Muslim University v. Vinay Engineering Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., 11 the Supreme Court
examined a case wherein the contract between the parties was executed at Aligarh; the
construction work was to be carried out at Aligarh; the contract provided that in the event of
dispute, Aligarh Court alone would have the jurisdiction; the arbitrator was to be appointed at
Aligarh and had to function at Aligarh. The Supreme Court held that the Court at Calcutta had no
jurisdiction, because the respondent company was a Calcutta-based firm.
10 (1994) 4 SCC 711
11 (1994) 4 SCC 710
15 | P a g e

In Manju Bhatia & Anr. v. New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr., 12 the Supreme Court
considered a case for damages, under which a cause of action in a definite form may not be
relevant except when necessary to comply with the laws relating to procedure and limitation etc.
The Apex Court observed that a cause of action in modern law is merely a factual situation., the
existence of which enables the plaintiff to obtain a remedy from the Court and he is not required
to head his statement of claim with a description of the breach of the law on which he relies.....
In State of Assam & Ors. v. Dr. Brojen Gogoi & Ors., 13 the Supreme Court examined a case
wherein the Bombay High Court had granted anticipatory bail to a person who was allegedly
connected with the offence, for all practical purposes, in a place within the territorial jurisdiction
of Gauhati High Court and all such activities had perpetuated therein. The Apex Court
transferred the case from Bombay High Court to Gauhati High Court to be heard
In C.B.I., Anti-corruption Branch v. Narayan Diwakar 14, the Apex Court considered a case where
the respondent was the Incharge/Collector in Daman within the territorial jurisdiction of Bombay
High Court and an FIR had been lodged against him in Daman for hatching conspiracy. He stood
transferred to Arunachal Pradesh within the territorial jurisdiction of Gauhati High Court. The
CBI gave him a wireless message from Bombay advising him to appear before its officers, in
respect of investigation of the said case, in Bombay. The respondent filed a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution before the Gauhati High Court. The Supreme Court did not
decide the case on merit but observed as under:Suffice it to say that on the facts and circumstances of the case and the material on record, we
have no hesitation to hold that the Gauhati High Court was clearly in error in deciding the
question of jurisdiction in favour of the respondent. In our considered view, the writ petition filed
by the respondent in the Gauhati High Court was not maintainable.

12 AIR 1998 SC 223

13 AIR 1998 SC 143
14 AIR 1999 SC 2362
16 | P a g e

The entire argument in the case had been that the Gauhati High Court had no jurisdiction to
entertain the writ petition as no cause of action had arisen, even partly, within its territorial
jurisdiction and receiving the message in Arunachal Pradesh to appear before the CBI Authority
at Bombay did not give rise to the cause of action, even partly.
In Muhammad Hafiz v. Muhammad Zakariya, AIR 1922 PC 23, the cause of action was
explained as under:- ....the cause of action is the cause of action which gives occasion for and
forms the foundation of the suit....
Similarly, in Read v. Brown,15 this was explained as under:- Every fact which would be
necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of
the court.
In Rameshwar Lal Ram Karan & Ors. v. Gulab Chand Puranmal, 16 it was held that a suit can be
filed in a court within whose jurisdiction a negotiable instrument was executed and the Court, in
whose territorial jurisdiction an assignment was made, could not have jurisdiction as no cause of
action, even in part, occurred therein, for the reason that such an assignment might have been
made to defeat the statutory provisions contained in Section 20 (c) of the Code. While deciding
the said case, the learned Single Judge of this Court considered two contrary judgments by the
Division Bench of this Court on the same point, viz., Mishrimal v. Moda, 17 and Abdul Gafoor v.
Sensmal & Ors., AIR18 and followed the former one, observing as under:..... If the assignment were to be treated as forming part of cause of action for the purpose of
giving jurisdiction, the defendant could be compelled to defend the suit at the choice of the
plaintiffs and this would cut at the basic principle underlying Section 20 CPC.

15 (1889) 22 QBD 128

16 AIR 1960 Raj. 243
17 1951 R.L.W. 433
18 1955 Raj. 53
17 | P a g e

There are certain judgments wherein it has been held that an assignment constitutes the cause of
action and is sufficient to give jurisdiction to the Court. (Kalooram Agarwalla V. Jonistha Lal
Chakrabarty & Anr.,)19

Chapter VI: Pecuniary Jurisdiction

Pecuniary jurisdiction refers to the jurisdiction of a court over a suit based on
the amount or value of its subject matter. Pecuniary jurisdiction of the court
divides the court on a vertical basis. It is very important to note that the
amount of pecuniary jurisdiction is different for all High Courts. This limit is
decided by respective High Court Rules. In many states High court has no
pecuniary jurisdiction. All civil suits go before District Courts, and only appeal
lies before High Court.
Provisions relating to pecuniary jurisdiction are given under S. 6 of the Civil
Procedure Code as follows , Save in so far as is otherwise expressly
provided, nothing herein contained shall operate to give any Court
jurisdiction over suits the amount or value of the subject-matter of which
exceeds the pecuniary limits (if any) of its ordinary jurisdiction. Meaning
thereby that there is a general prohibition upon courts to go beyond their
usual pecuniary limits as decided by the Central or State Legislatures.
Also, as per Section 15, every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the
lowest grade competent to try it This is a fundamental rule which means
that if a remedy is available at a lower court, the higher court must not be
approached. More specifically, this rule refers to the monetary value of the
suit. Each court is deemed competent to hear matters having a monetary
value of only certain extent. A matter that involves a monetary value higher
than what a court is competent to hear, the parties must approach a higher

19 AIR 1936 Cal. 349

18 | P a g e

court. At the same time, the parties must approach the lowest grade court
which is competent to hear the suit.
However, this rule is a rule of procedure, which is meant to avoid
overburdening of higher courts. It does not take away the jurisdiction of
higher courts to hear matter of lesser monetary value. Thus, a decree passed
by a court, which is not the lowest grade court competent to try the matter,
is not a nullity. A higher court is always competent to try a matter for which a
lower court is competent. This rule applies to the parties as it bars the
parties to approach a higher court when a lower court is competent to hear
the matter.
The usual pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Courts across the country is as
follows:
Suits amounting to Rs.1 - Rs.20, 00,000 lie before district courts.
Suits over and above Rs. 20,00,000/- lie before High Courts.
It is very important to note that the amount of pecuniary jurisdiction is
different for all High Courts. This limit is decided by respective High Court
Rules.
In many states High court has no pecuniary jurisdiction. All civil suits go before District Courts,
and only appeal lies before High Court. Eg. The court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) under The
Punjab Courts Act, 1918 determines the jurisdiction of the civil courts subordinate to the High
Court. This Court has no pecuniary limit i.e. this court exerciser unlimited pecuniary Jurisdiction
in Civil cases and exercises the power to decide the civil matters. This Court exercises original
Jurisdiction of Civil Cases. The jurisdiction to be exercised in original suits as regards the value
by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) is unlimited.

Conclusion
19 | P a g e

From the above contents of my project it can be concluded that section 9 at the threshold of the
Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) primarily deals with the question of civil courts jurisdiction to
entertain a cause. Civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit of civil nature except when its
cognizance is expressly barred or barred by necessary implication. Civil court has jurisdiction to
decide the question of its jurisdiction although as a result of the enquiry it may eventually turn
out that it has no jurisdiction over the matter. Civil court has jurisdiction to examine whether
tribunal and quasi- judicial bodies or statutory authority acted within their jurisdiction. But once
it is found that such authority, e.g., certificate officer had initial jurisdiction, then any erroneous
order by him is not open to collateral attack in a suit. As there is an essential and marked
distinction between the cases in which courts lack jurisdiction to try cases and where jurisdiction
is irregularly exercised by courts.
From various decisions of the Supreme Court, the following general principles relating to
jurisdiction of a civil court emerge:
a. A civil court has jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature unless their cognizance is barred
either expressly or impliedly.
b. Consent can neither confer nor take away jurisdiction of a court.
c. A decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity and the validity thereof can be
challenged at any stage of the proceedings, in execution proceedings or even in collateral
proceedings.
d. There is a distinction between want of jurisdiction and irregular exercise thereof.
e. Every court has inherent power to decide the question of its own jurisdiction.
f. Jurisdiction of a court depends upon the averments made in a plaint and not upon the defense
in a written statement.
g. For deciding jurisdiction of a court, substance of a matter and not its form is important.
h. Every presumption should be made in favor of jurisdiction of a civil court.
i. A statute ousting jurisdiction of a court must be strictly construed.

20 | P a g e

j. Burden of proof of exclusion of jurisdiction of a court is on the party who asserts it.
k. Even where jurisdiction of a civil court is barred, it can still decide whether the provisions of
an act have been complied with or whether an order was passed de hors the provisions of law.

Bibliography

A.N. SAHAS THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, (PREMIER PUBLISHING

COMPANY).
MANIS CIVIL JURISDICTION, (KAMAL PUBLISHERS, NEW DELHI)
M.A. MANA, MULLA ON THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908, SECTION 9.
WWW.MANUPATRA.COM
WWW.LEGALSERVICESINDIA.COM/ARTICLE/ARTICLE/JURISDICTION-OFCIVIL-COURT-UNDER-CIVIL-PROCEDURE-CODE-508-1.HTML

21 | P a g e