Section 18: Place of Institution of suit where local limits of jurisdiction of Courts are uncertain

Code of Civil Procedure Section 17. Suits for immovable property situate within jurisdiction of different Courts.

18. Place of Institution of suit where local limits of jurisdiction of Courts are uncertain.— (1) 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: 

Provided that the suit is one with respect to which the Court is competent as regards the nature and value of the suit to exercise jurisdiction.

(2) Where a statement has not been recorded under sub-section (1), and an 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.

Part in Red is original provisions from CPC reproduced here for reference.

Code of Civil Procedure Section 19. Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables.

Simplified Explanation:

Section 18 deals with the place of institution of a suit where local limits of jurisdictions of Courts are uncertain. 

Jurisdiction of courts and venue of suits

Jurisdiction means the authority by which a court has to decide matters that are brought before it for adjudication. The limit of this authority is imposed by charter, statute or commission. If no such limit is imposed or defined that the jurisdiction is said to be unlimited.

Limitation of jurisdiction of civil court is basically four kinds:

[a] Jurisdiction over the subject matter- to try certain matters by certain court is limited by statute (Ex. Small cause court- suit for money due under promissory note or a suit for price of work done)

[b] Place of suing or territorial jurisdiction – A territorial limit of jurisdiction for each court is fixed by Government.

[c] Jurisdiction over persons – All person of whatever nationality are subject to the jurisdiction of the country except foreign state.

[d] Pecuniary jurisdiction depending on pecuniary value of suit –There is no pecuniary jurisdiction of high court and district court.

Jurisdiction may be further classified: [a] Original jurisdiction [b] Appellate jurisdiction

Criminal and appellate jurisdiction- Supreme Court, High Courts and District courts have both original and appellate jurisdiction in various matter.

Judgments:

(a) In AVN Tubes Ltd. v. Shishiu Mehta (2008) 3 SCC 572, the High Court in revision, held that trial court had no jurisdiction. Apex Court directed trial court to decide the issue without being influenced by the observations made by trial court or High Court in revision.[1]

(b) In Manju Bhatia & Anr. v. New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr., AIR 1998 SC 223, the Supreme Court considered a case for damages, under which a “cause of action” in a definite form may not be relevant except when necessary to comply with the laws relating to procedure and limitation etc. The Apex Court observed that “a cause of action in modern law is merely a factual situation, the existence of which enables the plaintiff to obtain a remedy from the Court and he is not required to head his statement of claim with a description of the breach of the law on which he relies.....”[1]

Reference:

[1] http://www.nja.nic.in/16%20CPC.pdf

Please share and follow this blog for more such law related articles.