1

JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURTS

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Dr. Manoj Sharma Harsh Mangal

Assistant Professor of Law Roll No. 18008

RGNUL, Punjab RGNUL, Punjab

RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW, PUNJAB

2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank my teacher Dr. Manoj Sharma for giving me the opportunity to work
on this project. Her guidance has been of utmost importance. I am grateful for the books
available to us students at the institute’s e-library which enabled me to research on the
given topic with ease. This project would not have been possible without the kind support
of many individuals including my family. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to all of
them. My thanks and appreciation also goes to my fellow batch mates in developing the
project and the people who helped me out with the best of their ability.

-Harsh Mangal
3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................1

CHAPTER 2: TYPES OF JURISDICTION.........................................................................2

CHAPTER 3: LIMITATION / BARS UPON JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURTS

UNDER CPC............................................................................................................................5

CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION..............................................................................................11
 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

MEANING OF JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction is defined as the limit of judicial authority or extent to which a court of law can
exercise its authority over suits, cases, appeals etc. A 1921 Calcutta High Court judgement in
the case of Hriday Nath Roy v. Ram Chandra sought to explain the meaning of the term
‘Jurisdiction’ in detail.1 An investigation of the cases in the texts shows several attempts to
explain the word Jurisdiction which has been declared to be the power to hear and determine
the issues of law and the fact or the authority by which their judicial powers take knowledge
of facts and decide causes or the authority to hear and decide the legal dispute or the power to
hear and determine the subject matter in the dispute among the parties to a suit and to
adjudicate or exercise any judicial power over them or the ability to hear, determine and
declare judgement on issues before the court or the power or authority which is given to a
court by government to understand and learn causes between parties and to give a judgement
into the effect or the power to enquire into the facts to apply the law to pronounce the
Judgement and put it into execution.

LACK OF JURISDICTION AND IRREGULAR EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION

Whenever the suit is made before the court the initial issue is to decide whether the court has
jurisdiction to deal with the matter. If the court has all the three territorial, pecuniary or
subject matter jurisdiction then simply the court has the power to deal with any of the cases.
If the court does not have any of the jurisdiction then it will be recognised as lack of
jurisdiction and irregular exercise of jurisdiction. When the court does not have jurisdiction to
decide the case then such decision will be regarded as void or voidable depending upon the
circumstances.

THE BASIS TO DETERMINE JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction is determined mainly on the grounds of:

1
AIR 1929 Cal 445.
1
  Fiscal value;

 Geographical boundaries of a court;

 The subject matter of court.

So, the Court, before accepting notice of crime, need to take into consideration the following
characteristics:

 The Fiscal value of the trial.

 The specialities of the case.

 The regional limits of the court.

It is not only suitable that panel should have any right to deal with the issue or that the court
has a pecuniary jurisdiction of the court has a local jurisdiction, but the court must be able to
grant the compensation in such matter. In the case of Official Trustee v. Sachin Nath, the
court held that in order to deal with the topic the court must not be the only jurisdiction to
decide a specific matter but also the court has the ability to give the order for which it is
examined.2

CHAPTER 2: TYPES OF JURISDICTION

Following are the different kinds of jurisdiction:

TERRITORIAL OR LOCAL JURISDICTION

Under this territorial or local jurisdiction, the geographical limits of a court’s authority are
clearly delineated and specified. It cannot exercise authority beyond that geographical/
territorial limit. For example, if a certain crime is committed in Madhya Pradesh, only the
courts of law within the borders of Madhya Pradesh can hear and decide the case.
Furthermore, Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure3 explains the territorial jurisdiction
on the grounds of the location of the immovable property. In the case of Harshad Chiman
Lal Modi v, D.L.F Universal Ltd , the court interpreted Section 16 that the suit pertaining to
2
1969 AIR 823.
3
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Act. No. 5 of 1908, Enacted by Imperial Legislative (India), Section 16.
2
immovable property should be brought to the court. The court does not have the power to
decide the rights of property which are not situated. However, the court can still pass a relief
if the opposite party agrees to try the suit in such a case.4

PECUNIARY JURISDICTION

Pecuniary means ‘related to capital.’ It approaches the question of whether the court is
competent to try the case of the financial value. The code allows analysing the case unless the
suit’s value exceeds the financial limit of the court. Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure
commands the organisation of the suit in the court of the low grade. It refers to pecuniary
jurisdiction of Civil court.5 It is a course of the method and it does not affect the jurisdiction
of the court. The main objective of establishing pecuniary jurisdiction is to prevent the court
of a higher level from getting burdened and to provide assistance to the parties. However, the
court shall interfere if it finds the judgment to be wrong. For example, ’A ’wants to accuse
‘B’ due to a violation of the contract to obtain Rs 5000 in Bombay. The Bombay High Court
has original jurisdiction and small causes court with the jurisdiction up to Rs 50000. So, a suit
to obtain Rs 5000 should ideally be dealt with small causes court. In the case of Karan Singh
v. Chaman Paswan the plaintiff filed a suit in the subordinate court involving an amount of 
Rs 2950, but the court rejected the case. Later his next appeal was allowed by the High Court,
but it ordered him to pay the deficit amount. The appellant contested that the decision of the
district court will be a nullity, but the High Court dismissed the claim. Later the Supreme
Court confirmed the decision of the High Court declaring that the decision of district court
won’t be void.6

JURISDICTION AS TO THE SUBJECT MATTER

The subject matter can be defined as the authority vested in a court to understand and try
cases concerning a special type of subject matter. In other words, it means that some courts
are banned from hearing cases of a certain nature. No question of choices can be decided by
the court which do not have subject matter jurisdiction. Section 21 of the Code of Civil
Procedure is related to the stage challenging the jurisdiction. For Example, “Ranveer”, a
resident of Sonipat bought a food item of ‘AA’ brand that was plagued with pests. He should

4
Appeal (civil) 2726 of 2000.
5
Supra note 3, Section 15.
6
1954 AIR 340.
3
prosecute ‘ZZ’ company in Sonipat District forum rather than District Civil Court of
Sonipat.7

ORIGINAL AND APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Appellate jurisdiction refers to the court’s authority to review or rehearsal the cases that have
been already decided in the lower courts. In the Indian circumstances, both the High Court
and Supreme Court have the appellate jurisdiction to take the subjects that are bought in the
form of appeals.

Original Jurisdiction refers to the court’s authority to take notice of cases that could be
decided in these courts in the first instance itself. Unlike appellate jurisdiction wherein courts
review the previously decided matter, here the cases are heard afresh.

EXCLUSIVE AND CONCURRENT JURISDICTION

In Civil Procedure, exclusive jurisdiction means where a single court has the authority to
decide a case to the rejection of all the courts. This jurisdiction is decided on the basis of the
subject matter dealt with by a specific court. For example, the U.S District courts have
particular jurisdiction on insolvency topics. Concurrent jurisdiction exists where two or more
courts from different systems simultaneously have jurisdiction over a particular case. In this
situation, parties will try to have their civil or criminal case heard in the court that they
perceive will be most favourable to them.

GENERAL AND SPECIAL JURISDICTION

General jurisdiction means that general courts do not limit themselves to hearing only one
type of cases. This type of jurisdiction means that a court has the power to hear all types of
cases. So the court that has general jurisdiction can hear criminal, civil, family court case and
much more.

Specific jurisdiction is the ability of the court to hear a lawsuit in a state other than the
defendant’s home state if that defendant has minimum contacts within the state where the suit
will be tried.

7
Supra note 3, Section 21.
4
LEGAL AND EQUITABLE JURISDICTION

Equitable jurisdiction belongs to the authorities of the courts to take specific actions and pass
some orders in order to deliver an equitable and reasonable outcome. These judgments are
usually outside the purview of law, in the sense that support provided by the courts may not
be necessarily confirmed by the statue. In the case of K.K.Velusamy v. N.Palanisamy, the
Supreme Court of India held that Section 151 does not give any special jurisdiction to civil
courts, but only presents for the application of discretionary power to achieve the ends of
justice. This suggests that the court cannot give any such order which may be denied under
any law in such an order that may be prohibited under any law in order to achieve the ends of
justice. This would lead to the conclusion that such equitable jurisdiction is secondary to the
authority of the courts to implement the law.8

EXPOUNDING AND EXPANDING JURISDICTION

Expounding jurisdiction means to describe, clarify and explain jurisdiction. Expanding

jurisdiction means to develop, expand or prolong jurisdiction. It is the duty of the court to
clarify its jurisdiction and it is not proper for the court to extend its jurisdiction.

CHAPTER 3: LIMITATION / BARS UPON JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURTS

UNDER CPC

EXCLUSION OF JURISDICTION: LIMITATIONS

A litigation having a grievance of a civil nature has, independent of any statute, a right to
institute a suit in a civil court unless its cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.
The exclusion of the jurisdiction of a civil court is not to be readily inferred and such
exclusion must be clear.

Again, even when the jurisdiction of a civil court is barred, either expressly or by necessary
implication, it cannot be said that the jurisdiction is altogether excluded. A court has
jurisdiction to examine whether the provisions of the act and the rules made thereunder have
or have not been complied with, or the order is contrary to law, mala fide, ultra vires,
perverse, arbitrary, ‘purported’, violative of the principles of natural justice, or is based on

8
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2795-2796 OF 2011.
5
‘no evidence’ and so on. In all these cases, the order cannot be said to be under the act but is
de hors the act and the jurisdiction of a civil court is not ousted. In the leading decision of
Secretary of State v. Mask & Co., the Privy Council rightly observed:

“it is settled law that the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court is not to be readily
inferred, but that such exclusion must either be explicitly expressed or clearly implied. It is
also well established that even if jurisdiction is so excluded the civil courts have jurisdiction
to examine into cases where the provisions of the act have not been complied with, or the
statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial
procedure.”9

It is respectfully submitted that the following observations of Subba Rao, J.(as he then was)
in the leading case of Radha Kishan v. Ludhiyana Municipality lay down the correct legal
position regarding jurisdiction of civil courts and require to be produced:

“under section 9 of the civil procedure code the court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits
of civil nature excepting suits of which cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. A
statute, therefore, expressly or by necessary implication can bar the jurisdiction of civil
courts in respect of a particular matter. The mere conferment of special jurisdiction on a
tribunal in respect of the said matter does not in itself exclude the jurisdiction of civil courts.
The statute may specifically provide for ousting the jurisdiction of civil courts; even if there
was no such specific exclusion, if it creates liability not existing before and gives a special
and particular remedy for the aggrieved party, the remedy provided by it must be followed.
The same principle would apply if the statute had provided for the particular forum in which
the remedy could be had. Even in such cases, the civil court’s jurisdiction is not completely
ousted. A suit in a civil court will always lie to question the order of a tribunal created by
statute, even if its order is, expressly or by necessary implication, made final, if the said
tribunal abuses its power or does not act under the act but in violation of its provisions.”10

EXCLUSION OF JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT: PRINCIPLES

From the above discussion it is clear that the jurisdiction of civil courts is all- embracing
except to the extent it is excluded by law or by clear intendment arising from such law.

9
(1940) 42 BOMLR 767.
10
1963 AIR 1547.
6
In the classic decision of Dhulabhai v. State of M.P., after considering a number of cases,
Hidyatullah, C.J. summarized the following principles relating to the exclusion of jurisdiction
of civil courts:

a. Where a statute gives finality to orders of special tribunals, the civil courts jurisdiction
must be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the civil courts would
normally do in a suit. Such a provision, however, does not exclude those cases where the
provisions of a particular act have not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not
acted in conformity with fundamental principles of judicial procedure.

b. Where there is an express bar of jurisdiction of a court, an examination of the scheme of a

particular act to find the adequate or sufficiency of the remedies provided may be relevant but
this is not decisive for sustaining the jurisdiction of a civil court.

c. Where there is no express exclusion, the examination of the remedies and the scheme of a
particular act to find out the intendment becomes necessary and the result of the inquiry may
be decisive. In the latter case, it is necessary to see if a statute creates a special right or a
liability and provides for the determination of the right or liability and further lays down that
all questions about the said right and liability shall be determined by tribunals so constituted,
and whether remedies normally associated with actions in civil courts are prescribed by the
said statute or not.

d. challenge to the provisions of a particular act as ultra vires cannot be brought before
tribunals constituted under that act. Even the high court cannot go into that question on a
revision or reference from decisions of tribunals.

e. When a provision is already declared unconstitutional or the constitutionality of any

provisions is to be challenged, a suit is open. A writ of certiorari may include a direction for
refund if the claim is clearly within the time prescribed by the limitation act but it is not a
compulsory remedy to replace a suit.

f. Where the particular act contains no machinery for refund of tax collected in excess of
constitutional limits or is illegally collected, a suit lies.

7
g. Questions of the correctness of an assessment, apart from its constitutionality, are for the
decision of the authorized and a civil suit does not lie if the orders of the authorities are
declared to be final or there is an express prohibition in a particular act. In either case, the
scheme of a particular act must be examined because it is a relevant enquiry.

h. An exclusion of jurisdiction of a civil court is not readily to be inferred unless the

conditions above set down apply.11

The above principles enunciated are relevant in deciding the correctness or otherwise of
assessment orders made under taxing statutes.

In Premier Automobiles v. K.S. Wadke, the supreme court laid down the following principles
as applicable to the jurisdiction of a civil court in relation to industrial disputes:

a. If a dispute is not an industrial dispute, nor does it relate to enforcement of any other right
under the act, the remedy lies only in a civil court.

b. If a dispute is an industrial dispute arising out of a right or liability under the general or
common law and not under the act, the jurisdiction of a civil court is alternative, leaving it to
the election of a suitor or person concerned to choose his remedy for the relief which is
competent to be granted in a particular remedy.

c. If an industrial dispute relates to the enforcement of a right or an obligation created under

the act, then the only remedy available to suitor is to get adjudication under the act.

d. If the right which is sought to be enforced is a right created under the act such as chapter
V- A, then the remedy for its enforcement is either section 33-C or the raising of an industrial
dispute, as the case may be.12

Again, in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corpn. v. Krishna Kant, after considering various
leading decisions on the point, the Supreme Court summarized the principles applicable to
industrial disputes thus:

11
1969 AIR 78.
12
1975 AIR 2238.
8
1. where a dispute arises from the general law of contract, i.e., where relief’s are claimed on
the basis of the general law of contract, a suit filed in a civil court cannot be said to be not
maintainable, even though such a dispute may also constitute an “industrial dispute” within
the meaning of section 2 (k) or section 2-A of the industrial Dispute Act,1947.

2. where, however, a dispute involves recognition, observance or enforcement of any of the

rights or obligations created by the industrial Dispute Act, the only remedy is to approach the
famous created by the said act.

3. similarly, where a dispute involves the recognition, observance or enforcement of rights

and obligations created by enactments, like the industrial employment (standing order) act,
1946- which can be called “sister enactments’ to the industrial dispute act- and which do not
provide a forum for resolution of such disputes, the only remedy shall be to approach the
forums created by the industrial dispute act provided they constitute industrial disputes within
the meaning of section 2(k) and section 2-A of the industrial dispute act or where such
enactments says that such dispute shall be adjudicated by any of the forums created by the
industrial disputes act. Otherwise, recourse to a civil court is open.

4. it is not correct to say that remedies provided by the industrial disputes act are not equally
effective for the reason that access to a forum depends upon a reference being made by the
appropriate government. The power to make a reference conferred upon the government is to
be exercised to effectuate the object of the enactment and hence is not unguided. The rule is
to make a reference unless, of course, the dispute raised is a totally frivolous one ex facie.
The power conferred is the power to refer and not the power to decide, though it may be that
the government is entitled to examine whether the dispute is ex facie frivolous, not meriting
adjudication.

5. consistent with the policy of law aforesaid, we commend to parliament and state legislature
to make a provision enabling a workman to approach the labor court- i.e., without the
requirement of a reference by the government- in case of industrial dispute covered by
section 2-A of the industrial disputes act. This would go a long way in removing the
misgiving with respect to the effectiveness of the remedies provided by the industrial disputes
act.

9
6. the certified standing orders framed in accordance with the industrial dispute act and its
sister enactment is to provide an alternative dispute- resolution mechanism to workmen, a
mechanism which is speedy, inexpensive, informal and unencumbered by the plethora of
procedural laws and appeals upon appeals and revisions applicable to civil courts. Indeed, the
powers of courts and tribunals under the industrial disputes act are far more extensive in the
sense that they can grant such relief as they think appropriate in the circumstances for putting
an end to an industrial dispute.13

Very recently, in Chandrakant Tukaram v. Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad, the

supreme court reiterated the principles laid down in earlier decisions and stated:

“it cannot be disputed that the procedure followed by civil courts are too lengthy and,
consequently, are not an efficacious forum for resolving the industrial disputes speedily. The
power of the industrial courts also is wide and such forums are empowered to grant
adequate relief as they just and appropriate. It is in the interest of the workmen that their
disputes, including the dispute of illegal termination, are adjudicated upon by an industrial
forum.”14

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

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.

13
1995 AIR 1715.
14
Appeal (civil) 4849-4854 of 1992.
10
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.

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.

CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION

To conclude that by virtue of section 9 of CPC civil courts have jurisdiction to determine all
suits of civil nature. The jurisdiction of civil courts cannot be ultimate, because the provisions
of CPC bars jurisdiction of certain cases itself, and there are other bars also under other laws
and thus the jurisdiction of the courts. Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 confers
jurisdiction over the civil courts to adjudicate upon all suits of civil nature, except such suits
the cognizance of which is either expressly or implied barred. In other words whenever the
object of the proceedings is the enforcement of civil rights, a civil court would have
jurisdiction to entertain the suit unless the cognizance of the same is barred through a
legislative instrument.

Disputes relating to property, breach of contracts, wrongs committed in money transactions,

etc. are categorized as civil wrongs and could be subject to a civil process. In such cases civil
suits should be instituted by the aggrieved persons. Civil wrongs are redressed before civil
courts by granting injunctions or by payment of damages or compensation to the aggrieved
party. As a matter of fact, every suit should be instituted before the court of lowest
jurisdiction. In the civil side the Munsiff’s Court is the court of lowest of the jurisdiction.

Hence, it is clear that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court does not extend to all matters but
might be limited in certain cases. Thus, the current position regarding the jurisdiction of Civil
11
Courts is that they have inherent jurisdiction to heat into all civil matters unless it is expressly
or implied excluded by a statute.

12