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.

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. 

Code of Civil Procedure Section 18. Place of institution of suit where local limits of jurisdiction of Courts are uncertain.

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]

Reference:

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

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

Section 16: Suits to be instituted where subject-matter situate

Code of Civil Procedure Section 15. Court in which suits to be instituted.

16. Suits to be instituted where subject-matter situate.—Subject to the pecuniary or other limitations prescribed by any law, suits—

(a) for the recovery of immovable property with or without rent or profits,

(b) for the partition of immovable property,

(c) for foreclosure, sale or redemption in the case of a mortgage of or charge upon immovable property,

(d) or the determination of any other right to or interest in immovable property,

(e) for compensation for wrong to immovable property,

(f) for the recovery of movable property actually under distraint or attachment, shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate:

Provided that a suit to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immovable property held by or on behalf of the defendant may, where the relief sought can be entirely obtained through his personal obedience, be instituted either in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate, or in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain.

Explanation.—In this section “property” means property situate in ¹[India].

Note 1: Subs. by Act 2 of 1951, s. 3 for “the States”

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

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

Simplified Explanation:

Section 16 provides for institution of the suit where subject matters are situated. As per this section, the suit must be instituted where subject matter is situated.

It states for the various suits for immovable property (Clause (a) to (e)) and movable property (Clause (f)).

Suits regarding immovable property such as recovery of immovable property with or without rent or profit, partition of immovable property, foreclosure, sale or redemption of mortgage immovable property, compensation for wrong to immovable property etc. as well as suit regarding the recovery of movable property under distraint or attachment can be instituted at

a) a relevant Court having local limits of its jurisdiction where such property is situated; e.g. if the property is situated at Delhi then such suits shall be instituted at Court in Delhi and not at any other place. or

b) a relevant Court having local limits of its jurisdiction where the defendant actually or voluntarily resides or carries business or works for gain; e.g. the defendant resides in Mumbai then the suit against his can be filed at Court in Mumbai and not at any other place.

It should be noted that this section applies to any property situated within the territory of India (Bharat).

Judgment:

(a) In Aligarh Muslim University v. Vinay Engineering Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., (1994) 4 SCC 710, the Supreme Court examined a case wherein the contract between the parties was executed at Aligarh; the construction work was to be carried out at Aligarh; the contract provided that in the event of dispute, Aligarh Court alone would have the jurisdiction; the arbitrator was to be appointed at Aligarh and had to function at Aligarh. The Supreme Court held that the Court at Calcutta had no jurisdiction, because the respondent company was a Calcutta-based firm.

(b) In Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta v. Bombay Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., AIR 1995 SC 577, the Supreme Court considered a case wherein a civil court at Bharatpur (Rajasthan) entertained a civil suit in respect of assignment of imported goods unloaded at Calcutta dock and the plaintiff’s representation to the Port Trust to waive the port charges had been refused. The Civil Court at Bharatpur entertained the suit and passed an ex parte ad-interim mandatory injunction directing the Port Trust to release the goods on payment of specified amount. The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the appeal of the Port Trust, but the Supreme Court held that as no cause of action, even partly, occurred at Bharatpur, the only appropriate court at Calcutta was competent to take cognizance of the action and held that the orders of the Civil Court at Bharatpur, having no jurisdiction, were void and the order of the High Court, refusing to interfere with the orders, was illegal.

(c) In H.V. Jayaram v. Industrial Credit & Investment Corpn. of India Ltd., AIR 2000 SC 579, the Supreme Court examined the issue of territorial jurisdiction of a court in respect of the offence under Section 113 (2) of the Indian Companies Act, 1956. Taking note of Sections 113 and 207 of the said Act, the Apex Court held that the cause of action for default of not sending the share certificates within the stipulated period would arise only at a place where the registered office of the company was situated as from that place the share certificates could be posted and are usually posted.

Reference:

1) http://www.nja.nic.in/16%20CPC.pdf

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

Section 15: Court in which suits to be instituted

Code of Civil Procedure Section 14. Presumption as to foreign judgments.

PLACE OF SUING

15. Court in which suits to be instituted.—Every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it.

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

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

Simplified Explanation:

Section 15 provides that every suit shall be instituted in the Court of lowest grade competent to try it. e.g. If there is a consumer dispute then such suit must be instituted initially in the District Consumer Forum because it is of lowest grade in such matters.

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. 

Judgments:

Reference:

1) http://www.nja.nic.in/16%20CPC.pdf

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

Presumption as to foreign judgments

 Code of Civil Procedure Section

14. Presumption as to foreign judgments.—The Court shall presume upon the production of any document purporting to be a certified copy of a foreign judgment, that such judgment was pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction, unless the contrary appears on the record; but such presumption may be displaced by proving want of jurisdiction.

 Code of Civil Procedure Section

Section 13 When foreign judgment not conclusive

 Code of Civil Procedure Section 12. Bar to further suit.

13. When foreign judgment not conclusive.—A foreign judgment shall be conclusive as to any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title except—

(a) where it has not been pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction;

(b) where it has not been given on the merits of the case;

(c) where it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognise the law of ¹[India] in cases in which such law is applicable;

(d) where the proceedings in which the judgment was obtained are opposed to natural justice;

(e) where it has been obtained by fraud;

(f) where it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in ¹[India].

Note 1: Subs. by Act 2 of 1951, s. 3, for “the States”.

 Code of Civil Procedure Section 14. Presumption as to foreign judgments.

More Reading: 

Judgment

Natural Justice

Section 12 Bar to further suit

Code of Civil Procedure Section 11. Res judicata.

12. Bar to further suit —Where a plaintiff is precluded by rules from instituting a further suit in respect of any particular cause of action, he shall not be entitled to institute a suit in respect of such cause of action in any Court to which this Code applies.

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

Code of Civil Procedure Section 13. When foreign judgment not conclusive.

Judgments:

1) Dir., Cent. Marine Fisheries Res. Inst. & Ors. v A. Kanakkan & Ors., (2009) 17 SCC 253: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 12- Res judicata – Applicability - Principle of res judicata to apply to proceedings before CAT. - However, when fresh cause of action arises - Res judicata would have no application.

(Para 12) Principle of res judicata would apply to proceedings initiated before the Central Administrative Tribunal. If the said principles were applicable, the bar to maintain a fresh application on the self-same cause of action would attract provisions of Section 12 of the Code of civil Procedure or the general principles of res judicata.

2) Ramchandro Dagdu Sonavane (Dead) by L.Rs. & Ors. v. Vithu Hiro Mahar (Dead) by LRs. & Ors., (2009) 10 SCC 273: (Para 31) Civil – Res judicata - Application of - Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Whether the Judgment and Decree passed in the original suit would operate as res judicata in subsequent proceedings, including the proceedings before the High Court in the second appeal and writ petition filed by the Respondents - Held, a plea decided even in suit for injunction touching the title between the same parties, would operate as res judicata - In the present case, all the issues has been decided in earlier suit and has been confirmed in the regular second appeal and the issue decided therein was binding on the parties - Each one of the conditions necessary to satisfy the test as to the applicability of Section 11 of CPC is satisfied.

3) 

Reference:

1) http://www.nja.nic.in/16%20CPC.pdf