JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURTS UNDER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
Himanshu Gupta,
Chandra Prabhu Jain College of Higher Studies and School of Law
INTRODUCTION
Jurisdiction defines the limits under which a court has the right to try/not try a matter. As jurisdiction is not properly defined under code of civil procedure so there is no proper definition for it but various courts at different times have interpreted jurisdiction as the power of the court to try the matter. So, jurisdiction defines the authority of the court to hear or not to hear a matter. A court deciding a matter out of its jurisdiction will lead to irregular exercise of jurisdiction. The matters decided during exercise of irregular jurisdiction can be termed voidable/ void depending upon the nature and circumstances of that matter.
Civil courts in India have a pre-determined jurisdiction according to which they are authorised to exercise their power to determine the civil matters and pronounce judgements. If the court exercises its power outside its defined jurisdiction, then it is said to be irregular exercise of jurisdiction/ lack of jurisdiction. Civil courts in India can provide penalties in the form of monetary fines or by inducing permanent/ temporary injunction.
There are many provisions available under code of civil procedure, 1908 which defines the jurisdiction of civil courts in India. Civil courts are of great importance to the nation as they help in safeguarding the interest of the citizens and provide them with remedy(s). Civils courts are also responsible for safeguarding the fundamental rights, interpreting the laws/ statutes, enforcement of rights of the parties, resolve disputes, etc. Civil courts are concerned with non-criminal matters and have a primary function to resolve civil disputes.
TYPES OF JURISDICTIONS
Jurisdiction has been classified into various types under which the powers/authority of the courts to hear and decide the matter are determined. Various types of jurisdictions are: -
● GEOGRAPHICAL/TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
Territorial jurisdiction defines the geographical area till which the authority of court lies and the court is competent to hear and decide the matter. Any matter tried outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court can be termed void/ voidable i.e. court cannot exercise powers outside its territorial jurisdiction. Section 16 of code of civil procedure, 1908 defines the territorial jurisdiction with respect to immovable property. It is very important to file the matter in the court with proper jurisdiction i.e. competent court as the efforts done to file the case in an incompetent court will go in vain at the early stages only and then the party(s) have to file the matter again in a competent court with proper jurisdiction to try the matter.
● PECUNIARY JURISDICTION
Generally, pecuniary means ‘involving money’. So, pecuniary jurisdiction defines the competency of the courts to hear and decide the matter on its pecuniary/financial value. Each court has its own different pecuniary jurisdiction under which it is allowed to exercise its powers. Pecuniary jurisdiction is pre-determined and helps in reducing the burden of the higher courts.
● SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
Each court has a pre-defined subject matter under which it is specialized to hear the matter like civil courts, criminal courts, family courts, electricity tribunals, commercial courts, etc. each court is determined to hear and decide the matter particularly related to that subject matter only i.e. they cannot hear matters related to any other subject matter. Civil courts can only try civil matters any criminal matter filed in civil courts is not maintainable under law and will be dismissed.
● ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Original jurisdiction defined the powers/authority of courts to decide the matter in the first instance i.e. fresh matters. Each court has its own original jurisdiction to try and decide the matter. While exercising this jurisdiction the courts can conduct hearing, record/take evidence and determine facts and laws. It can also be said as a fundamental power of judiciary to adjudicate matters and resolve them. The supreme court of India can exercise original jurisdiction under article 32 and 131 of constitution of india,1950.
● APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Appellate jurisdiction defines the authority of the court to hear an already decided matter by the sub-ordinate court(s). This jurisdiction is exercised by the higher courts to fix the errors/correct the mistakes/ prevent injustice (if any) done by the sub-ordinate courts. Appellate jurisdiction can only be exercised by supreme court and high courts.
● CONCURRENT JURISDICTION
Concurrent jurisdiction arises when two or more courts simultaneously have jurisdiction over a single particular matter i.e. all of these courts have the jurisdiction to try and decide the matter. Parties in this situation have the choice to file the matter in any competent court which is favourable/nearby to them.
● EQUITABLE JURISDICTION
Equitable jurisdiction gives the authority to the court to hear and decide such matters where the situation demands solution to a question which is outside the purview of law. The court in these cases have to produce an equitable decision using justice, equity and good concise. The jurisdiction helps the courts to decide matters which are not earlier decided and lay down new statutes.
INTERNATIONAL JURISDICTION UNDER CPC
International jurisdiction comes into play when foreign parties are involved or the event on which the matter is based happened somewhere outside India. Some legal provisions under code of civil procedure, 1908 which governs the international jurisdiction are: -
● SECTION 9 OF CPC
Civil courts are authorized for using the powers given under this section, civil courts can hear any matter that falls under their jurisdiction until that suit is barred by law. It helps in preventing irregular exercise of jurisdiction by the courts.
● SECTION 14 OF CPC
This section provides civil courts the authority to presume that any foreign judgement produced before them was pronounced by a competent court and is enforceable if it fulfils all the criteria prescribed u/s 13 of code of civil procedure, 1908.
● SECTION 20 OF CPC
Civil courts can use the powers provided under this section to presume jurisdiction in cases where one party resides in a foreign nation but cause of action arises in India. This enables the court to undertake such matters and adjudicate them.
PREREQUISITE CONDITIONS
There are two conditions which needs to be fulfilled by the case to be heard and tried by the civil court.
COGNIZANCE NOT BARRED
Any party having complaint against the other party has a right to sue the other party unless its cognizance is barred under law, either impliedly or expressly.
EXPRESSLY BARRED
A ‘Suit Expressly Barred’ means that suit is not maintainable because it is prohibited by law. These types of suits are prohibited for further proceedings in the court.
IMPLIEDLY BARRED
A ‘Suit Impliedly Barred’ means that suit is not maintainable as it is barred by the general principles of law.
In Shankar Narayan Potti vs K. Sreedevi, The Supreme Court ruled that civil courts have primary jurisdiction in all civil matters under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908, unless the action is barred by law. The court also said that the legislature can limit the jurisdiction of civil courts by adding a clause or provision to an act.
2. NATURE
The matter should be of civil nature to be tried by the civil courts. The word ‘CIVIL SUIT’ is not defined under law but can be generally defined as suits that are not criminal in nature. Civil suits are generally related to performance or establishment of civil rights. Civil suits can be of different types such as civil defamation, breach of contract, consumer protection, family disputes, torts, land and family disputes.
Civil suits generally involve parties/disputes between corporation/individuals. In civil suits criminal charges are not framed and punishments are given in the form of monetary penalties or injunctions. Civil suits help the parties to gain justice and determine their rights.
LANDMARK CASES
In Hariday Nath Roy v. Ramchandra, the Calcutta High Court has explained the eloquence of the word Jurisdiction in detail. It was held that during an investigation or inquiry in books that exhibit various efforts to describe the term jurisdiction, which is established as:
● the power to hear and adjudicate the issues of law and facts or
● the Power by which the judges take the cognizance of facts which are given or
● the power to listen and adjudicate any legal controversies or
● the Power to listen and take the subject matter in issue between the parties and also to adjudicate or
● the power to affirm the judgment on the issues of facts and law laid before the court or
● the power to go through the facts, to apply the law, to ordain the judgment, and to execute the same which is conferred by the legislature upon Court.
In Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, the Supreme Court underscored a fundamental principle: a decree issued by a court lacking jurisdiction is deemed null and void.
●Its invalidity can be contested whenever and wherever it is invoked, even during execution proceedings or in collateral matters.
● A jurisdictional deficiency undermines the very authority of the court to issue any decree, and such a flaw cannot be remedied even through the parties consent.
● Conversely, when a court possesses jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute, parties cannot relinquish or invalidate it through consent.
● Any attempt to completely exclude the court's jurisdiction would be unlawful and unenforceable, as it contravenes public policy (ex dolo malo non oritur actio).
● However, if multiple courts have jurisdiction over a case, parties can mutually agree to select a specific forum and exclude others.
● In such instances, where no inherent lack of jurisdiction exists, such agreements are lawful, valid, and enforceable.
In Abdulla Bin Ali v. Galappa, the plaintiff initiated a lawsuit in the civil court seeking a declaration of title, possession, and mesne profits, treating the defendants as trespassers.
Despite the defendants' argument that the civil court lacked jurisdiction because of their status as tenants, the Supreme Court dismissed this contention. It emphasised that the allegations in the plaint determine the appropriate forum, independent of the defences raised by the defendants. The suit, characterised by the plaintiffs as against trespassers, was deemed cognizable by the civil court based on the plaint's assertions.
However, it's imperative to note that a plaintiff cannot manipulate the drafting of their plaint to evade legal provisions and confer jurisdiction upon a civil court where it doesn't inherently exist. Furthermore, in jurisdictional matters, substance prevails over form.
CONCLUSION
Jurisdiction plays a major role in determining the competency of the court and whether the suit will be maintainable under law or not. Before filing the suit proper scrutinization of competency of court should be taken into account to avoid any repercussion in the future. There are various types of jurisdiction and prerequisite conditions required to be fulfilled for the suit to be maintainable in the court.
Jurisdiction of civil courts are presumed u/s 9 of code of civil procedure, 1908. Civil courts have the jurisdiction to hear and try that matter unless its expressly/ impliedly barred or not of civil in nature. Civil courts have the authority to hear and resolve the matters falling under its jurisdiction. Civil courts are also responsible to fill the gap that lies in the drafted laws by interpreting the law which works as precedents for the future.
Civil courts play a major role in enforcement and implication of legal rights ultimately safeguarding the citizens of the country. They are also responsible for ensuring justice and fairness in the system. Civil courts also help in providing social justice by entertaining various public interest litigation (PIL).
REFERENCES
·Shankar Narayan Potti vs K. Sreedevi
·Hariday Nath Roy v. Ramchandra