Section 15 to 20 of CPC

Rule of instituted where original jurisdiction is entertained

According to Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, every suit shall be instituted in the court of the lowest grade competent to try it. This is known as the rule of lowest court first.

The aim is to avoid overburdening higher courts and to ensure economical use of judicial resources. This rule, however, only refers to the court’s pecuniary jurisdiction and not to territorial or subject-matter jurisdiction.

Pecuniary and Territorial Jurisdiction

Pecuniary Jurisdiction

Pecuniary jurisdiction refers to the authority of the court to try cases of a particular monetary value. Courts are organized in a hierarchy and allotted limits on the amount of money involved in cases they can try.

Example: A District Court may have jurisdiction to try cases valued above ₹2 lakhs, whereas a Civil Judge (Junior Division) may only entertain suits up to ₹2 lakhs.

Territorial Jurisdiction

Sections 16 to 20 CPC deal with territorial jurisdiction which depends on the nature and subject of the suit:

• Section 16: Suits relating to immovable property to be filed where the property is located.
• Section 17: When immovable property is located in jurisdiction of multiple courts, suit can be filed in any of them.
• Section 18: Deals with uncertainty about jurisdiction – allows court to decide based on best judgment.
• Section 19: For suits related to compensation for wrongs to person or movable property – may be filed where wrong was done or where defendant resides.
• Section 20: Residual section – suits may be filed where defendant resides, carries on business, or where cause of action arises.

Objections to Jurisdiction

Section 21 CPC lays down that an objection as to the place of suing (territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction) shall not be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless:

• The objection was taken in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity.
• There has been a consequent failure of justice.

Illustration: If a defendant participates in the trial without raising objection to territorial jurisdiction early on, they cannot raise it later in appeal.

Judicial View: The courts have emphasized that procedural objections should not override the substantive cause of justice unless real prejudice is shown.

Law relating to suits to be instituted in different Courts

The law provides guidelines regarding which court among several competent courts is the appropriate one to file a suit. This is governed by Sections 15 to 20 of CPC, and it aims to balance access to justice with judicial convenience.

Factors determining choice of court:

• Nature of suit – immovable vs. movable property.
• Location of defendant or cause of action.
• Monetary value of the suit – determines pecuniary jurisdiction.

In case of multiple defendants or complex jurisdictional overlap, the court may allow suit to be filed in a place where a part of cause of action arises or where one defendant resides, as per Section 20(c).

Important Case Law:

ABC Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies – The Supreme Court held that if part of cause of action arises at more than one place, then suit can be filed in either of those places, provided the court has jurisdiction.

Determination of Pecuniary Jurisdiction

Value of subject-matter

Pecuniary jurisdiction refers to the monetary limit up to which a court can try civil suits. The value of the subject-matter of a suit helps in determining whether a court has the authority to entertain that suit or not.

This value is generally the one mentioned by the plaintiff in the plaint unless it is arbitrarily inflated or deflated to bypass or attract jurisdiction. The court may assess the bona fides of the valuation to check if the correct court has been approached.

As per Indian law, different courts have been granted different pecuniary jurisdictions by respective State High Courts through rules and notifications under the CPC. For instance, in Delhi:

• Civil Judge: Up to ₹3 lakhs
• District Judge: ₹3 lakhs to ₹2 crores
• High Court: Above ₹2 crores

Note: These limits may vary from state to state depending upon notifications and amendments made by the respective High Courts under their rule-making power.

Value of suits

The valuation for pecuniary jurisdiction depends on the nature of the relief claimed. It can be determined under the following heads:

1. Suits for money or damages:

The amount claimed is the determining value. For example, a suit for recovery of ₹4 lakhs must be filed before the District Court (as per Delhi jurisdiction).

2. Suits for property:

The market value of the immovable or movable property is taken into consideration. The plaintiff must state this value clearly in the plaint.

3. Suits for injunctions or declarations:

The value is decided by the plaintiff subject to the court’s scrutiny. It should reflect the actual benefit sought through such relief.

Answer:

Importance of Pecuniary Jurisdiction

Pecuniary jurisdiction is crucial to maintain judicial discipline and to ensure that cases are distributed according to their financial significance. It helps in:

• Preventing overburdening of higher courts with petty matters.
• Ensuring speedy disposal of smaller claims by lower courts.
• Proper allocation of judicial resources across the judicial hierarchy.

If a court tries a case beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction, the decree passed can be declared null and void due to lack of jurisdiction.

Judicial Observation:

In Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan (AIR 1954 SC 340), the Supreme Court held that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity and its validity can be challenged at any stage, even in execution or collateral proceedings.

Thus, determining the proper pecuniary jurisdiction is a fundamental legal step in initiating civil litigation, and any error can render the proceedings invalid and waste judicial time.

Nature of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

Subject-matter jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court to adjudicate cases of a particular category or cases relating to a specific subject. It is concerned not with the amount or the location but with the type of case brought before the court.

This jurisdiction is determined by the nature of the dispute and is conferred by the Constitution or the statute. No consent, waiver, or acquiescence by the parties can confer subject-matter jurisdiction where it does not exist.

If a court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, any order or decree passed by it is null and void.

Examples:

• Matrimonial disputes are to be filed in the Family Court.
• Company matters fall under the jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).
• Land acquisition matters are dealt with by special tribunals or civil courts as provided under the respective statute.

Hence, subject-matter jurisdiction is fundamental and non-negotiable.

Suits of Civil Nature

Section 9 of CPC

Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code states 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.”

Thus, it lays down two key conditions:

• The suit must be of a civil nature.
• It should not be expressly or impliedly barred.

What is a Civil Nature?

The expression “civil nature” is broader than “civil proceedings.” It includes not only private rights but also rights related to status, property, office, or any legal right.

Explanation I and II (added by amendment):

• Explanation I: A suit where the right to property or office is contested is of a civil nature, even if the decision involves questions of religious rites or ceremonies.
• Explanation II: Suits involving purely religious rites without affecting civil rights are not suits of a civil nature.

Answer:

Exclusion of Jurisdiction

Exclusive jurisdiction of other courts

Sometimes, certain matters are exclusively assigned to special courts or tribunals by legislation. In such cases, civil courts are barred from entertaining suits, even if they are of a civil nature.

For instance:

• Income Tax matters fall within the jurisdiction of Income Tax Tribunals.
• Consumer disputes are to be addressed under the Consumer Protection Act through District, State, and National Commissions.
• Labour matters are dealt with under the Industrial Disputes Act by Labour Courts and Tribunals.

This exclusion can be:

• Express: When a statute clearly says that civil courts shall not have jurisdiction.
• Implied: When the legislative scheme leaves no room for civil court intervention.

Res judicata and constructive res judicata

Res judicata (Section 11 of CPC) means that once a matter has been finally decided by a competent court, the same parties cannot re-litigate the same issue in another suit.

Constructive res judicata refers to the principle that if a party had an opportunity to raise a claim or defence in an earlier suit and failed to do so, they will be barred from raising it in a subsequent suit.

Effect on Subject-Matter Jurisdiction:

While res judicata doesn’t directly relate to subject-matter jurisdiction, it acts as a bar to jurisdiction in rem (on the matter itself) and ensures judicial consistency.

Answer: