8/11/2019 Territorial Jurisdiction CPC

1/3

Introduction

CLASSIFICATION OF COURTS ACCORDING TO AREA AND MONEY DIPUTED

The Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) is to regulate the functioning of Civil courts. CPC lays down the rules in whicha civil court is to function, which may be summed up as follows:-

1.

Procedure of filing the civil case.2. Powers of court to pass various orders.3. Court fees and stamp involved in filing of case.4. Rights of the parties to a case, viz. plaintiff and defendant5. Jurisdiction and parameters within which the civil courts should function.6. Specific rules for proceedings of a case.7. Right of Appeals, review or reference.

JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction of civil courts can be divided on two basis.

1. PECUNIARY/MONETARY 2. TERRITORIAL/AREAWISE CLASSIFICATION

Pecuniary/Monetary

Pecuniary jurisdiction of the court divides the court on a vertical basis.At present the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Delhi courts is as follows:

1. Suits amounting to Rs.1 - Rs.20, 00,000 lie before district courts.2. Suits over and above Rs. 20,00,000/- lie before High Courts.

i. It is very important to note that the amount of pecuniary jurisdiction is different for all HighCourts. This limit is decided by respective High Court Rules.

ii. In many states High court has no pecuniary jurisdiction. All civil suits go before DistrictCourts, and only appeal lies before High Court.

Territorial Jurisdiction

Territorial Jurisdiction divides the courts on a horizontal basis.

DISTRICT COURTS

For example in Delhi, there are three District level courts, viz. Patiala House, Tis Hazari and Karakardooma. Allthese courts have nearly same powers. However, being on a same horizontal line, these courts are dividedterritory wise, i.e. area wise. Again for example, cases pertaining to South Delhi, New Delhi and West Delhi willlie before Patiala House, and North Delhi cases will lie before Tis Hazari, and cases pertaining to East Delhi willlie before Karakardooma.

HIGH COURT

Similarly High Court of two different states, say Delhi, and Punjab may have similar powers in their respectivestates, but are divided on the basis of area. Cases pertaining to Delhi will lie before Delhi High court and casespertaining to Punjab will lie before Punjab High Court.

How is Territory Decided?

Territory of a court is decided after taking into account several factors. They are:

1. IN CASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY:If the suit is with regard to recovery, rent, partition, sale,

redemption, determination of right of immovable property, it shall be instituted in the court within thelocal limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situated.

2. IMMOVABLE PROPERTY SITUATED WITHIN THE JURISDICTIONOF DIFFERENT COURTS:Insuch a case the suit may be instituted in any court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction anyportion of the property is situated.

3. IN CASE OF DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO OR MORE PERSONS WITH RESPECT TO MOVABLEPROPERTY, BUSINESS OR ANY OTHER WRONG DONE: Where a wrong has been caused to aperson, or any damage has been caused to a movable property, then the suit may be institutedeither,

i. In the place, where wrong or damage has been caused, or

ii.

In the place, where defendant (the person who caused the loss) resides.

8/11/2019 Territorial Jurisdiction CPC

2/3

8/11/2019 Territorial Jurisdiction CPC

3/3

It is well settled that a civil court has inherited power to decide its own jurisdiction.

Presumption as to jurisdictionIn dealing with the question whether a civil courts jurisdiction to entertain a suit is barred or not, it is necessary to be ar 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 shouldnot be readily inferred unless the relevant statute contains an express provision to that effect, or leads to a necessary and inevitable implication of thenature.

Burden of proofIt 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 oustingthe 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 inthe 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 courtshould lean towards the assumption of jurisdiction. A civil court has inherent power to decide the question of its own jurisdiction; although as a resultof such inquiry it may turn out that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Exclusion of jurisdiction: limitationsA 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 eitherexpressly 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 isaltogether excluded. A court has jurisdiction to examine whether the provisions of the act and the rules made thereunder have or have not beencomplied 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 andthe jurisdiction of a civilcourt is not ousted. In the leading decision ofSecretary 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 exc lusion must either be explicitlyexpressed or clearly implied. It is also well established that even if jurisdiction is so excluded the civil courts have jurisdiction to examine into caseswhere 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.

General principlesFrom 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.

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 orderwas passed de hors the provisions of law.

ConclusionFrom 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 withthe question of civil courts jurisdiction to entertain a cause. It lays down that subject to what are contained in section 1 0,11, 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 necessaryimplication. civil court has jurisdiction to decide the question of its jurisdiction although as a result of the enquiry it may eventually turn out that ithas no jurisdiction over the matter. Civil court has jurisdiction to examine whether tribunal and quasi- judicial bodies or statutory authority actedwithin there jurisdiction. But once it is found that such authority, e.g., certificate officer had initial jurisdiction, then any erroneous order by him is notopen to collateral attack in a suit. Because there is an essential and marked distinction between the cases in which courts lack jurisdiction to try casesand where jurisdiction is i rregularly exercised by courts.