Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Jurisdiction (from the Latin ius, iuris meaning "law" and dicere meaning "to speak") is the practical
authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or to a political leader to deal with and make
pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of
responsibility. The term is also used to denote the geographical area or subject-matter to which such
authority applies.
Jurisdiction draws its substance from public international law, conflict of laws, constitutional law
and the powers of the executive and legislative branches of government to allocate resources to best
serve the needs of its native society.
The District Court or Additional District court exercises jurisdiction both on original and appellate
side in civil and criminal matters arising in the District. The territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction in
civil matters is usually set in concerned state enactments on the subject of civil courts. On the
criminal side jurisdiction is almost exclusively derived from code of criminal procedure. This code
sets the maximum sentence which a district court may award which currently is capital punishment.
The court exercises appellate jurisdiction over all subordinate courts in the district on both civil and
criminal matters. These subordinate courts usually consist of a Junior Civil Judge court, Principal
Junior civil Judge court, Senior civil judge court (often called sub court)in the order of ascendancy
on the civil side and the Judicial Magistrate Court of IInd Class, Judicial Magistrate Court of Ist
class, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court in the order of ascendancy on the criminal side.
Certain matters on criminal or civil side cannot be tried by a court inferior in jurisdiction to a
district court if the particular enactment makes a provision to the effect. This gives the District
Court original jurisdiction in such matters.
Appeals from the district courts lie to the High court of the concerned state.
Territorial Jurisdiction:
Territorial Jurisdiction divides the courts on a horizontal basis.
District Courts:
For example in Delhi, there are three District level courts, viz. Patiala House, Tis Hazari and
Karakardooma. All these courts have nearly same powers. However, being on a same horizontal
line, these courts are divided territory wise, i.e. area wise. Again for example, cases pertaining to
South Delhi, New Delhi and West Delhi will lie before Patiala House, and North Delhi cases will lie
before Tis Hazari, and cases pertaining to East Delhi will lie before Karakardooma.
High Court:
Similarly High Court of two different states, say Delhi, and Punjab may have similar powers in their
respective states, but are divided on the basis of area. Cases pertaining to Delhi will lie before Delhi
High court and cases pertaining to Punjab will lie before Punjab High Court.
The word nature has defined as the fundamental qualities of a person or thing; identity or
essential character, sort;kind;charachter. It is thus wider in content. The word civil nature is wider
that the word civil proceeding. The section would, therefore, be available in every case where the
dispute was of the characteristics of affecting ones rights which are not only civil but of civil
nature.
iv. Test: a suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of a civil nature,
notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of a question as to religious
rites or ceremonies.
v. Suits of civil nature: illustrations- the following are suits of a civil nature.
1. suits relating to rights to property;
2. suits relating to rights of worship;
3. suits relating to taking out of religious procession;
4. suits relating to right to share in offerings;
5. suits for damages for civil wrongs;
6. suits for specific performance of contracts or for damages for breach of contracts;
7. suits for specific reliefs;
8. suits for restitution of conjugal rights;
9. suits for dissolution of marriages;
10. suits for rent;
11. suits for or on account;
12. suits for rights of franchise;
13. suits for rights to hereditary offices;
14. suits for rights to Yajmanvritis;
15. suits against wrongful dismissal from service and for salaries, etc.
vi. suits not of civil nature- illustrations- the following are not suits of a civil nature:
1. suits involving principally caste questions;
2. suits involving purely religious rites or ceremonies;
3. suits for upholding mere dignity or honor;
4. suits for recovery of voluntary payments or offerings;
5. suits against expulsions from caste, etc.
cooperative tribunal, motor accident claims tribunal, etc. or by domestic tribunals, e.g. Bar Council,
Medical Council, university, club etc. are expressly barred from the cognizance of a civil court. But
if the remedy provided by a statute is not adequate and all questions cannot be decided by a special
tribunal, the jurisdiction of a civil court is not barred. Similarly, when a court of limited jurisdiction
prima facie and incidentally states something, the jurisdiction of a civil court to finally decide the
time is not ousted.
ii. Suits impliedly barred- a suit is said to be impliedly barred when it is barred by general principles
of law.
Where a specific remedy is given by a statute, it thereby deprives the person who insists upon a
remedy of any other form than that given by the statute. Where an act creates an obligation and
enforces its performance in a specified manner, that performance cannot be enforced in any other
manner.
Similarly, certain suits, though of a civil nature, are barred from thee cognizance of a civil court on
the ground of public policy. the principle underlying is that a court ought not to countenance
matters which are injurious to and against the public weal. Thus, no suit shall lie for recovery of
costs incurred in criminal prosecution
or for enforcement of a right upon a contract hit by section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872;
or against any judge for acts done in the course of his duties.
Likewise, political questions belong to the domain of public administrative law and are outside the
jurisdiction of civil courts. A civil court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon disputes of a political
nature.
Again, in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corpn. V.Krishna Kant, after considering various leading
decisions on the point, the Supreme Court summarized the principles applicable to industrial
disputes thus:
1. where a dispute arises from the general law of contract, i.e., where reliefs are claimed on the
basis of the general law of contract, a suit filed in a civil court cannot be said to be not maintainable,
even though such a dispute may also constitute an industrial dispute within the meaning of
section 2 (k) or section 2-A of the industrial Dispute Act,1947.
2. where, however, a dispute involves recognition, observance or enforcement of any of the rights or
obligations created by the the industrial Dispute Act, the only remedy is to approach the famous
created by the said act.
3. similarly, where a dispute involves the recognition, observance or enforcement of rights and
obligations created by enactments, like the industrial employment (standing order) act, 1946- which
can be called sister enactments to the industrial dispute act- and which do not provide a forum for
resolution of such disputes, the only remedy shall be to approach the forums created by the
industrial dispute act provided they constitute industrial disputes within the meaning of section 2(k)
and section 2-A of the industrial dispute act or where such enactments says that such dispute shall
be adjudicated by any of the forums created by the industrial disputes act. Otherwise, recourse to a
civil court is open.
4. it is not correct to say that remedies provided by the industrial disputes act are not equally
effective for the reason that access to a forum depends upon a reference being made by the
appropriate government. The power to make a reference conferred upon the government is to be
exercised to effectuate the object of the enactment and hence is not unguided. The rule is to make a
reference unless, of course, the dispute raised is a totally frivolous one ex facie. The power
conferred is the power to refer and not the power to decide, though it may be that the government is
entitled to examine whether the dispute is ex facie frivolous, not meriting adjudication.
5. consistent with the policy of law aforesaid, we commend to parliament and state legislature to
make a provision enabling a workman to approach the labor court- i.e., without the requirement of a
reference by the government- in case of industrial dispute covered by section 2-A of the industrial
disputes act. This would go a long way in removing the misgiving with respect to the effectiveness
of the remedies provided by the industrial disputes act.
6. the certified standing orders framed in accordance with the industrial dispute act and its sister
enactment is to provide an alternative dispute- resolution mechanism to workmen, a mechanism
which is speedy, inexpensive, informal and unencumbered by the plethora of procedural laws and
appeals upon appeals and revisions applicable to civil courts. Indeed, the powers of courts and
tribunals under the industrial disputes act are far more extensive in the sense that they can grant
such relief as they think appropriate in the circumstances for putting an end to an industrial dispute.
Very recently, in Chandrakant Tukaram v. Municipla Corporation of Ahmedabad, the supreme court
reiterated the principles laid down in earlier decisions and stated:
it cannot be disputed that the procedure followed by civil courts are too lengthy and, consequently,
are not an efficacious forum for resolving the industrial disputes speedily. The power of the
industrial courts also is wide and such forums are empowered to grant adequate relief as they just
and appropriate. It is in the interest of the workmen that their disputes, including the dispute of
illegal termination, are adjudicated upon by an industrial forum.
General principles
From various decisions of the Supreme Court, the following general principles relating to
jurisdiction of a civil court emerge:
1. A civil court has jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature unless their cognizance is barred
either expressly or impliedly.
2. Consent can neither confer nor take away jurisdiction of a court.
3. A decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity and the validity thereof can be
challenged at any stage of the proceedings, in execution proceedings or even in collateral
proceedings.
4. There is a distinction between want of jurisdiction and irregular exercise thereof.
5. Every court has inherent power to decide the question of its own jurisdiction.
6. Jurisdiction of a court depends upon the averments made in a plaint and not upon the defense in a
written statement.
7. For deciding jurisdiction of a court, substance of a matter and not its form is important.
8. Every presumption should be made in favor of jurisdiction of a civil court.
9. A statute ousting jurisdiction of a court must be strictly construed.
10.Burden of proof of exclusion of jurisdiction of a court is on the party who asserts it.
11. Even where jurisdiction of a civil court is barred, it can still decide whether the provisions of an
act have been complied with or whether an order was passed de hors the provisions of law.
Conclusion
From the above contents of my project it can be concluded that section 9 at the threshold of the
Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) primarily deals with the question of civil courts jurisdiction to
entertain a cause. It lays down that subject to what are contained in section 10,11, 12, 13, 47, 66, 83,
84, 91, 92, 115, etc., civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit of civil nature except when its
cognizance is expressly barred or barred by necessary implication. civil court has jurisdiction to
decide the question of its jurisdiction although as a result of the enquiry it may eventually turn out
that it has no jurisdiction over the matter. Civil court has jurisdiction to examine whether tribunal
and quasi- judicial bodies or statutory authority acted within there jurisdiction. But once it is found
that such authority, e.g., certificate officer had initial jurisdiction, then any erroneous order by him
is not open to collateral attack in a suit. Because there is an essential and marked distinction
between the cases in which courts lack jurisdiction to try cases and where jurisdiction is irregularly
exercised by courts.