Tuesday 5 January 2021

Section 17: Suits for immovable property situate within jurisdiction of different Courts

Code of Civil Procedure Section 16. Suits to be instituted where subject-matter situate.


17. Suits for immovable property situate 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 Courts. The suit may be instituted in any Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situate: 

Provided that, in respect of the value of the subject-matter of the suit, the entire claim is cognizable by such Court.

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



Simplified Explanation: 
Section 17 provides that suit shall be instituted for immovable property situate within the jurisdiction of different Courts. 

Conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function. It can neither be conferred with the consent of the parties nor by a superior court. If a court having no jurisdiction passes a decree over the matter, it would amount to a nullity, as the matter by-passes the correct route of jurisdiction. Such an issue can be raised even at a belated stage in execution. The finding of a court or Tribunal becomes irrelevant and unenforceable/ inexecutable once the forum is found to have no jurisdiction.

Acquiescence of parties cannot confer jurisdiction upon a court and an erroneous interpretation equally should not be permitted to perpetuate or perpetrate, defeating the legislative intention. The Court cannot derive jurisdiction apart from the Statute. No amount of waiver or consent can confer jurisdiction on the Court if it inherently lacks it or if none exists.

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) Territorial Jurisdiction: Dabur India v. K.R. Industries (2008) 10 SCC 595. Apex Court held that composite suit for passing off & copyright infringement cannot be filed at a place where plaintiff resides or carries on business etc.[1]

(b) Territorial Jurisdiction specified in contract case. M/s Ass. Rubber Prod. v. M/s Harry & Jenny & Ors. (2008) AIHC 2754 held that jurisdiction of Court specified in contract can safely be presumed. Absence of words like ‘along’ ‘only’ excluded would be irrelevant.[1]

(c) Exclusion of jurisdiction: United India Ins. v. Ajay Sinha, (2008) 7 SCC 454 excluding jurisdiction of civil courts & conferring it on authorities or Tribunals should be strictly construed…..[1]

(d) Arbitration clause vis-à-vis Civil Jurisdiction - Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Ambika Ent. (2008) AIHC 619 held that section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 being a special provision, would prevail over Section 9 of CPC.[1]




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


No comments:

Post a Comment