CPC Sec.9

Download PDF

JURISDICTION

JURISDICTION—MEANING

"Jurisdiction" means authority to decide. "Jurisdiction" may be defined to be the power or authority of a court to hear and determine a cause, to adjudicate and exercise any judicial power in relation to it. Jurisdiction means the extent of the authority of a court to administer justice prescribed with reference to subject-matter, pecuniary value and territorial limits.

JURISDICTION AND CONSENT

It is well-settled that consent cannot confer nor take away jurisdiction of a court. If the court has no inherent jurisdiction, neither acquiescence nor waiver nor estoppel can create it.

A.R. ANTULAY V. R.S. NAYAK, [AIR 1988 SC 1531.]

‘’The power to create or enlarge jurisdiction is legislative in character, so also the power to confer a right of appeal or to take away right of appeal. Parliament alone can do it by law and no court, whether superior or inferior or both combined, can enlarge the jurisdiction of a court or divest a person of his rights of revision and appeal."

CHIEF ENGINEER, HYDEL PROJECT V. RAVINDER NATH, (2008) 2 SCC 350.]

A decree passed without jurisdiction is nullity.” and its validity can be set up whenever it is sought to be enforced as a foundation for a right, even at the stage of execution for its decision. In short, a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a coram non judice.

KIRAN SINGH V. CHAMAN PASWAN [AIR 1954 SC 340:]

A defect of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and strikes at the authority of a court to pass a decree. Such a basic and fundamental defect cannot be cured by consent of parties and the judgment or order passed by a court, however precisely certain and technically correct, is null and void and the validity thereof can be challenged at any stage.

Conversely, where a court has jurisdiction to decide a dispute, the same cannot be taken away or ousted by consent of parties.

An agreement to oust absolutely the jurisdiction of the court would be unlawful and void, being against public policy (ex dolo malo non oritur action)

But if two or more courts have jurisdiction to try the suit, it is open to the parties to select a particular forumand exclude the other forums. And, therefore, the parties may agree among themselves that the suit should be brought in one of those courts. and not in the other, since there is no inherent lack of jurisdiction in the court.

Such an agreement would be legal, valid and enforceable.

LACK OF JURISDICTIONANDIRREGULAREXERCISE OF JURISDICTION

There is always a distinction between want of jurisdiction and irregular exercise of it.

LACK OF JURISDICTION

A decree passed without jurisdiction is nullity.” and its validity can be set up whenever it is sought to be enforced as a foundation for a right, even at the stage of execution for its decision.

In short, a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a coram non judice. [Chief Engineer, Hydel Project v. Ravinder Nath, (2008) 2 SCC 350.]

"It is a fundamental principle well-established that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and that it’s in validity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings.

A defect of jurisdiction- strikes at the very authority of the Court to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties." [Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan [AIR 1954 SC340:]

IRREGULAREXERCISE OF JURISDICTION

Once it is held that a court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide a matter, the correctness of the decision given cannot be said to be without jurisdiction inasmuch as the power to decide necessarily carries with it the power to decide wrongly as well as rightly. [Ujjam Bai v. State of U.P., AIR 1962 SC 1621]

In the words of Lord Hobhouse, "A court has jurisdiction to decide wrong as well as right.

If it decides wrong, the wronged party can only take the course prescribed by law for setting matters right; and if that course is not taken, the decision, however wrong, cannot be disturbed."

If a court has jurisdiction but it is irregularly exercised, the defect does not go to the root of the matter, and the error, if any, in exercising the jurisdiction can be remedied in appeal or revision and when there is no such remedy or is not availed of, the decision is final.

ANISMINIC LTD. V. FOREIGN COMPENSATION COMMISSION

After the landmark decision in Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission, the legal position is considerably changed. It virtually assimilated the distinction between lack of jurisdiction and erroneous exercise thereof.

ML. SETHI V. R.P. KAPUR, [AIR 1972 SC 2379 AT P. 2385.]

The difference between jurisdictional error and error of law within jurisdiction has been reduced almost to a vanishing point.

ITTYAVIRA MATHAI V. VARKEY VARKEY [AIR 1964 SC 907: (1964) 1 SCR 495,]

it was contended that the decree passed by the court was a nullity since the suit was time barred.

Negativing that contention, the Supreme Court observed: -"If the suit was barred by time and yet, the court decreed it, the court would be committing an illegality and therefore the aggrieved party would be entitled to have the decree set aside by preferring an appeal against it.

But it is well-settled that a court having jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit and over parties thereto though bound to decide right may decide wrong;

and that even though it decided wrong it would not be doing something which it had no jurisdiction to do. If the party aggrieved does not take appropriate steps to have that error corrected, the erroneous decree will hold good and will not be open to challenge on the basis of being a nullity

BASIS TO DETERMINE JURISDICTION

The jurisdiction of a court should normally be decided on the basis of the case put forward by the plaintiff in his plaint and not by the defendant in his written

statement.

Thus, in Abdulla v. Galappa [ (1985) 2 SCC 54: AIR 1985 SC 577.] the plaintiff filed a suit in the civil court for declaration of title and for possession and mesne profits treating the defendants as trespassers.

The defendants contended that the civil court had no jurisdiction since he was a tenant.

Negativing the contention of the defendants, the Supreme Court observed, "There is no denying the fact that the allegations made in plaint decide the forum.

The jurisdiction does not depend up on the defence taken by the defendants in the written statement.

The plaintiff, however, cannot by drafting his plaint cleverly circumvent the provisions of law in order to invest jurisdiction in civil court which it does not possess.

It is also well established that in deciding the question of jurisdiction, what is important is the substance of the matter and not the form.

Thus, in Bank of Baroda v. Moti Bhai, [(1985)1 SCC 475: AIR 1985SC 545.]

The plaintiff Bank lent a certain amount to the defendant in the usual course of its commercial business.

By way of a collateral security, however, it obtained a hypothecation bond and a deed of mortgage from the defendant under the Tenancy Act conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the revenue court.

When the suit was filed in the civil court for recovery of amount, it was contended by the defendant that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit.

Negativing the contention, the Supreme Court observed that the business of the bank was to lend money. If only by way of collateral security the bank obtains a hypothecation bond or a deed of mortgage, the provisions of the Tenancy Act cannot be attracted

The main relief sought by the bank was that the suit should be decreed for repayment of amount. The civil court had, therefore, jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the bank.

On the question of jurisdiction, one must always have regard to the substance of the matter and not to the form of the suit

ANANTI V. CHHANNU [AIR 1930 ALL 193: ILR 52 ALL 501 (FB).]

(FULL BENCH OF THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT AND APPROVED BY THE SUPREME COURT)

The plaintiff chooses his forum and files his suit.

If he establishes the correctness of his facts, he will get his relief from the forum chosen.

If... he frames his suit in a manner not warranted by the facts, and goes for his relief to a court which cannot grant him relief on the true facts, he will have his suit dismissed.

Then there will be no question of returning the plaint for presentation to the proper court, for the plaint, as framed, would not justify the other kind of court to grant him the relief....

If it is found, on a trial on the merits so far as this issue of jurisdiction goes, that the facts alleged by the plaintiff are not true and the facts alleged by the defendants are true, and

that the case is not cognizable by the court, there will be two kinds of orders to be passed.

If the jurisdiction is only one relating to territorial limits or pecuniary limits, the plaint will be ordered to be returned for presentation to the proper court.

If, on the other hand, it is found that, having regard to the nature of the suit, it is not cognizable by the class of court to which the court belongs, the plaintiff's suit will have to be dismissed in its entirety."

KINDS OF JURISDICTION

CIVIL AND CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Civil jurisdiction is that which concerns and deals with disputes of a ''civil nature".

Criminal jurisdiction, on the other hand, relates to crimes and punishes offenders.

TERRITORIAL OR LOCAL JURISDICTION

Every court has its own local or territorial limits beyond which it cannot exercise its jurisdiction. These limits are fixed by the Government

The District Judge has to exercise jurisdiction within his district and not outside it.

The High Court has jurisdiction over the territory of a State within which it is situate and not beyond it.

PECUNIARY JURISDICTION

Pecuniary jurisdiction is related to limits of jurisdiction of court with respect to its amount or value of the subject matter.

The Code provides that a court will have jurisdiction only over those suits the amount or value of the subject matter of which does not exceed the pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction. [S. 6.]

Some courts have unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction, e.g., High Courts and District Courts have no pecuniary limitations.

But there are other courts having jurisdiction to try suits up to a particular amount.

Thus, a Presidency Small Causes Court cannot entertain a suit in which the amount claimed exceeds Rs 1000.

JURISDICTION AS TO SUBJECT-MATTER

Different courts have been empowered to decide different types of suits.

Certain courts are precluded from entertaining certain suits.

Thus, a Presidency Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction to try suits for specific performance of a contract, partition of immovable property, foreclosure or redemption of a mortgage, etc.

Similarly, in respect of testamentary matters, divorce cases, probate proceedings, insolvency proceedings, etc., only the District Judge or Civil Judge (Senior Division) has jurisdiction.

ORIGINAL AND APPELLATE JURISDICTION

§ Original jurisdiction is jurisdiction inherent in, or conferred upon, a court of first instance In the exercise of that jurisdiction, a court of first instance decides suits, petitions or applications. Munsiffs Courts, Courts of Civil Judges, Small Cause Courts are having original jurisdiction only,

Appellate jurisdiction is the power or authority conferred up ona superior court to rehear by way of appeal, revision, etc., of causes which have been tried and decided by courts of original jurisdiction. While District Courts, High Courts have original as well as appellate jurisdiction.

EXCLUSIVE AND CONCURRENT JURISDICTION

Exclusive jurisdiction is that which confers sole power on one court or tribunal to try,

No other court or authority can render a judgment or give a decision in the case or class of cases.

Concurrent or co-ordinate jurisdiction is jurisdiction which may be exercised by different courts or authorities between the same parties, at the same time

and over the same subject- matter.

It is, therefore, open to a litigant to invoke jurisdiction of any of such court or authority.

GENERAL AND SPECIAL JURISDICTION

General jurisdiction extends to all cases comprised within a class or classes of causes.

Special or limited jurisdiction, on the other hand, is jurisdiction which is confined to special, particular or limited causes.

LEGAL AND EQUITABLE JURISDICTION

Legal jurisdiction is a jurisdiction exercised by Common Law Courts in England

Equitable jurisdiction is a jurisdiction exercised by Equity Courts.

COURTS IN INDIA ARE COURTS OF BOTH, LAW AND EQUITY

MUNICIPAL AND FOREIGN JURISDICTION

Municipal or domestic jurisdiction is a jurisdiction exercised by municipal courts, i.e., courts in a country

Foreign jurisdiction means jurisdiction exercised by a court in a foreign country.

A judgment rendered or decision given by a foreign court is a "foreign judgment".

EXPOUNDING AND EXPANDING JURISDICTION

Expounding jurisdiction means to define, clarify and explain jurisdiction.

Expanding jurisdiction means to expand, enlarge or extend the jurisdiction

It is the duty of the court to expound its jurisdiction. It is, however, not proper for the court to expand its jurisdiction.

Download PDF