Under the Code of Civil Procedure, a civil court has jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature unless they are barred Section 9 of the code reads as under:

'The Court shall (subject to the provisions herein contained have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.

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

· The suit must be of a civil nature; and

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

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. But what is a suit of a civil nature? 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. 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.

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-

· A suit is said to be "expressly barred" when it is barred by any enactment for the time being in force.

· A suit is said to be impliedly barred 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 in 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 the cognizance of a civil court on the ground of public policy.

There is a fundamental distinction between the right to file a suit and the right to file an appeal. The said distinction has been appropriately explained by Chandrachud, J. (as he then was) in the case of ganga bai v. Vijay Kumar in the following words:

"There is a basic distinction between the right of suit and the right of appeal. There is an inherent right in every person to bring a suit of a nature and unless the suit is barred by statute one may, at one's peril bring a suit of one's choice. It is no answer to a suit, howsoever frivolous the claim, that the law confers no such right to sue. A suit for its maintaibility requires no authority of law and it is enough that no statute bars the suit. But the position in regard to appeal is quite the opposite. The right to appeal inheres in no one and therefore an appeal for its maintainability must have the clear authority of law. An appeal is a continuation of a suit. A decree passed by an appellate court would be construed to be a decree passed by the Court of the first instance. An appeal is virtually a rehearing of the matter. The appellate court possesses the same powers and duties as the original court. Once again the entire proceedings are before the appellate court which can review the evidence as a whole. The courts have wide ranging powers in matters of appeal cases. This is specially the case of the first appeals, where the courts have almost identical powers as that of the court of original trial jurisdiction. As mentioned above, section 107 of the code recognizes the principle that an appeal is, in effect, a continuation of the suit. The position is further illuminated by the following points:

1. The appellate court has all the powers and has to do all those things necessary that a trial court has and has to do. In this sense, even when the case goes on appeal, it is just the name that has undergone a change; the form and substance still remain the same.

2. In the same vein as above, the appellate court has to do all that has been done by the trail court in that particular case, and then either agree or disagree from the trial court.

3. Hence, even the appellate court has to write a judgement and pass a decree. In the event of the court upholding the lower court’s decision, the appellate court may write down the same decree, without changing it, and the decree will now be deemed to have been that of the appellate court.

The important point to bear in mind when it comes to making a statement to the effect that an appeal is a continuation of the suit, is that it is more in the interest of justice and adherence to the principles of fair trial that these provisions ought to be seen. No doubt that the right to appeal is not an inherent right and has to be mandated by the law, yet it is not that a very technical and mechanical view has to be taken into account.

Received on 13.03.2014 Modified on 18.03.2014

Int. J. Ad. Social Sciences 2(1): Jan. –Mar., 2014; Page 69-70