INTRODUCTION:

Jurisdiction (from the Latin words juris meaning "law" and dicere meaning "to speak") is the practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or to a political leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility. The term is also used to denote the geographical area or subject-matter to which such authority applies. 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.

The court exercises appellate jurisdiction over all subordinate courts in the district on both civil and criminal matters. These subordinate courts usually consist of a Junior Civil Judge court, Principal Junior civil Judge court, Senior civil judge court (often called sub court)in the order of ascendancy on the civil side and the Judicial Magistrate Court of IInd Class, Judicial Magistrate Court of Ist class, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court in the order of ascendancy on the criminal side.Certain matters on criminal or civil side cannot be tried by a court inferior in jurisdiction to a district court if the particular enactment makes a provision to the effect. This gives the District Court original jurisdiction in such matters.

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 immpractical 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, speciality 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. Jurisdiction can be categorized into the following kinds -

1. Pecuniary Jurisdiction

2. Territorial Jurisdiction

3. Revisional Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction of Civil Court under Civil Procedure Code

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.[i]

A civil court has jurisdiction to try a suit if two conditions are fulfilled:

1. The suit must be of a civil nature; and

2. The cognizance of such a suit should not have been expressly or impliedly barred.

Suit must be of a civil nature

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[ii], it pertains to private rights and remedies of a citizen as distinguished from criminal, political, etc. the word ‘nature’ has been defined as ‘the fundamental qualities of a person or thing; identity or essential character; sort, kind, character’’. The expression ‘civil nature’ is wider than the expression ‘civil proceedings’.[iii] 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.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 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.

In PMA Metropolitan v. M.M. Marthoma[iv] the Supreme Court stated:

“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 Black’s 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 one’s rights which are not only civil but of civil nature.”

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] is said to be a civil suit. This includes suits relating to rights to property; suits relating to rights of worship; suits relating to taking out of religious procession; suits relating to right to share in offerings; suits for damages for civil wrongs; suits for specific performance of contracts or for damages for breach of contracts; suits for specific reliefs; suits for restitution of conjugal rights; suits for dissolution of marriages; suits for rent; suits for or on account; suits for rights of franchise; suits for rights to hereditary offices; suits for rights to Yajmanvritis; suits against wrongful dismissal from service and for salaries, etc.Suits which are not of a civil nature include suits involving principally caste questions; suits involving purely religious rites or ceremonies; suits for upholding mere dignity or honour; suits for recovery of voluntary payments or offerings; suits against expulsions from caste, etc.

Cognizance of such a suit should not have been expressly or impliedly barred

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.Suits expressly barred- a suit is said to be ‘expressly barred’ when it is barred by any enactment for the time being in force.[vi] It is open to a competent legislature to bar jurisdiction of 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.[vii]

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.[viii] 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.[ix] 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.

Inherent power of jurisdiction

It is well settled that a civil court has inherited power to decide its own jurisdiction. In dealing with the question whether a civil court’s 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 a necessary and inevitable implication of the nature.[x]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.[xi] 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.

Exclusion of jurisdiction

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.[xii]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 there under have or have not been complied with, or the order is contrary to law, malafide, ultra vires, perverse, arbitrary, ‘purported’, violative of the principles of natural justice, or is based on ‘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.[xiii], 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.”

The following observations of Subba Rao, J. in the leading case of Radha Kishan v. Ludhiyana Municipality[xiv] 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.”

Thus, 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.

Very recently, in Chandrakant Tukaram v. Municipla Corporation of Ahmedabad[xv], 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.”

Pecuniary Jurisdiction

As per Section 15, every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it.[xvi] 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 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.[xvii] A higher court is always competent to try a matter for which a lower court is competent.[xviii] 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.

Territorial Jurisdiction

Territorial Jurisdiction means the territory within a Court has jurisdiction. For example, if a person A is cheated in Indore, then it makes sense to try the matter in Indore instead of Chennai. The object of this jurisdiction is to organize the cases to provide convenient access to justice to the parties. To determine whether a court has territorial jurisdiction, a matter may be categorized into four types –

1. Suits in respect of immovable property

According to Section 16,

Suits to be instituted where subject-matter is situated — 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 situated:[xix]

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.[xx]

As per Section 17 of the Code:

Suits for immovable property situated 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 situated : Provided that, in respect of the value of the subject matter of the suit, the entire claim is cognizable by such Court.[xxi]

Section 18 of the Code discussed the place of institution of suit where local limits of jurisdiction of Courts are uncertain: Where it is alleged to be uncertain within the local limits of the jurisdiction of which of two or more Courts any immovable property is situate, any one of those Courts may, if satisfied that there is ground for the alleged uncertainty, record a statement to that effect and thereupon proceed to entertain and dispose of any suit relating to that property, and its decree in the suit shall have the same effect as if the property were situate within the local limits of its jurisdiction.[xxii]

However, the suit is one with respect to which the Court is competent as regards the nature and value of the suit to exercise jurisdiction.[xxiii]Where a statement has not been recorded under sub-section (1), and objection is taken before an Appellate or Revisional Court that a decree or order in a suit relating to such property was made by a Court not having jurisdiction where the property is situate, the Appellate or Revisional Court shall not allow the objection unless in its opinion there was, at the time of the institution of the suit, no reasonable ground for uncertainty as to the Court having jurisdiction with respect thereto and there has been a consequent failure of justice.[xxiv]

2. Suits in respect of movable property or for compensation for wrong (tort)

It is said that the movables move with the person. Thus, a suit for a movable person lies in the court, the territory of which the defendant resides.

Therefore Section 19 of the Code dictates:

Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movable— 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.[xxv]

For example, if:

(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.

3. Other suits

According to Section 20 of the Code:

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.[xxvi]

For example, if:

(a) A is a tradesman in Calcutta, B carries on business in Delhi. B, by his agent in Calcutta, buys goods of A and requests A to deliver them to the East Indian Railway Company. A delivers the goods accordingly in Calcutta. A may sue B for the price of the goods either in Calcutta, where the cause of action has arisen or in Delhi, where B carries on business.

(b) A resides at Simla, B at Calcutta and C at Delhi A, B and C being together at Benaras, B and C make a joint promissory note payable on demand, and deliver it to A. A may sue B and C at Benaras, where the cause of action arose. He may also sue them at Calcutta, where B resides, or at Delhi, where C resides; but in each of these cases, if the non-resident defendant objects, the suit cannot proceed without the leave of the Court.

Objection as to Jurisdiction

No objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by any appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues or settled at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.[xxvii] Also, no objection as to the competence of a Court with reference to the pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity, and in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.[xxviii] No objection as to the competence of the executing Court with reference to the local limits of its jurisdiction shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the executing Court at the earliest possible opportunity, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.[xxix]

As held in Pathumma v. Kutty[xxx], no objection as to the place of suing will be allowed by an appellate or revisional court unless the following three conditions are satisfied -

(i) The objection was taken in first instance. (ii) The objection was taken at the earliest possible opportunity and in cases where issues are settled at or before settlement of issues (iii) there has been a consequent failure of justice.

All the three conditions must be satisfied simultaneously.

Revisional Jurisdiction

‘Revision’ means the action of revising especially critical or careful examination on perusal with a view to correcting or improving. Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure invests, in all High Courts, what is called revisional jurisdiction.

As per Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Revision-

(1) The High court may call for the record of may case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears-

(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or

(b) to have failed to exercised a jurisdiction so vested,

(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit:

Provided that the High Court shall not under this section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where- the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding.[xxxi]

(2) The High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto.[xxxii]

(3) A revision shall not operate as a stay of suit or other proceedings before the Court except where such suit or other proceeding is stayed by the High court.

Explanation- In this Section, the expression, ‘any case which has been presided’ includes any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding.[xxxiii]

It is only in cases where the subordinate court has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity that the jurisdiction of the High Court can be properly invoked. If there is no question of jurisdiction the decision cannot be corrected by the high Court in exercise of revisional powers. The primary object of this section is to prevent the subordinate courts from acting arbitrarily, capriciously and illegally or irregularly in the exercise of their jurisdiction. It clothes thee High Court with the powers necessary to see that the proceedings of the subordinate courts are conducted in accordance with the law within the bounds of their jurisdiction and in furtherance of justice.

In the exercise of its revisional powers, it is not the province of the High Court to enter into the merits of the evidence nor can it admit additional evidence. What inference is to be drawn from the evidence on the record is not for the High Court under S 115 to decide. However, where the order is based on a misreading of the pleadings, consequent thereto and the Court has misdirected itself n passing an order, the court under S 115 has the power to interfere.

The exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court is discretionary and the High Court is not bound to interfere merely because the conditions laid down in the case are satisfied. An applicant invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court must not show only that there is a jurisdictional error but also that the interests of justice call for interference.

The revisional jurisdiction of a court is a part and parcel of its appellate jurisdiction. Revisional jurisdiction is one of the modes of exercising powers conferred by the statute on a superior court. Basically and fundamentally, it is the appellate jurisdiction, which is being invoked and exercised in a wider and larger sense. However, a right to appeal carries with a right of rehearing on fact as well as on law, unless the statute conferring the right of appeal limits such rehearing. The conferment of revisional jurisdiction is to keep subordinate courts within the limits of their jurisdiction and to make the act according to the procedure established by law. The High Court may refuse to interfere in revision on equitable grounds if it is satisfied that substantial justice has been done.

CONCLUSION:

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 court’s jurisdiction to entertain a cause. It lays down that subject to what are contained in section 10,11, 12, 13, 47, 66, 83, 84, 91, 92, 115, etc., 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 there 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. Because 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.

REFERENCES: