Você está na página 1de 20

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

Place of Suit Section 15 – 21of


The Code of Civil Procedure

Submitted by:-
Submitted to:-
Dishant Mittal
Dr. Karan Jawanda

Assistant Professor, Uils, 130/15 (13754)

Panjab University Section C

B.com L.L.B

1|Page
Acknowledgement

Success is a blend of multiple efforts. The final import of this project is also a
result of the sheer hard work and constant support of many people. I would like to
take this opportunity to thank all of them.

To begin with, I would like to express my humble gratitude to my teacher, DR.


KARAN JAWANDA, for her able guidance and mentoring. The meticulous manner
in which she teaches has paid significantly in the completion of this project.

Secondly, I would like to thank my department, University Institute of Legal


Studies, Panjab University, Chandigarh, for providing such an expansive library
which provided me all the relevant material required for this project.

Last but not the least, I would like to express my profound gratitude to my
parents and my friends who have constantly supported and motivated me
throughout this project.

Dishant Mittal

2|Page
Table of Contents
Acknowledgement .......................................................................................................................... 2

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ 3

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 4

Suit .................................................................................................................................................. 5

Jurisdiction ...................................................................................................................................... 6

Institution of Suit: the Provisions under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908: ..................................... 7

Place of Suing ................................................................................................................................. 7

Pecuniary Jurisdiction ................................................................................................................. 8

Section 15 Court in which suits to be instituted ......................................................................... 8

Territorial Jurisdiction ................................................................................................................ 9

Section 16 Suits to be instituted where subject matter situate- ................................................... 9

Section 17: Suits for immovable property situate within jurisdiction of different Courts- ...... 12

Section 18: Place of institution of suit where local limits of jurisdiction of Courts are
uncertain- .................................................................................................................................. 13

Section 19. Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables- .................................. 14

Section 20: Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises- ..... 15

Section 21: Objections to jurisdiction- ..................................................................................... 18

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 19

Bibliography ................................................................................................................................. 20

3|Page
INTRODUCTION

The basic aim of a legal system of a country is to impose duty to respect the legal rights
conferred upon the members of the society. The person making a breach of that duty is said to
have done the wrongful act. On the basis of nature and gravity of such wrongful acts, those are
separated under two categories: Public Wrong and Private Wrong. Public wrong is deemed to be
committed against the society and the Private wrong, against individuals. The gravity of the
former is greater than that of the latter. The first category is termed under the Law as ‘crime’
governed by the Criminal Laws (Substantive and Procedural) and the second category, as ‘civil
wrong’ governed by the Civil Laws. In case of civil wrong, the remedy is the compensation
either liquidated or unliquidated damages; the remedial measures ensured to the people is based
on the Latin maxims damnum sine injuria (damage without injury), injuria sine damnum (injury
without damage) and ubi jus ibi remedium. According to the first two maxims if the legal right of
a person is violated he will get the remedy, even in case where no actual damage is caused to
him; but where he has no legal right, then if any actual damage is caused to him, he cannot be
entitled to get the remedy. The ubi jus, ibi idem remedium (where there is a right there is a
remedy), speaks of the remedial measure available in the formerly mentioned cases. Such
remedial measures are enforced through the institution of suit. The Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 is the procedural or the adjective law of India in civil matters1.

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 came into force with effect from 1January 1909. This is
consolidated Code as to procedure to be followed by civil courts. As observed in Prem Lala
Nabata v. Chandi Prasad Sikaria2, the code consolidates and amends the laws relating to the
procedure of the courts of Civil Judicature. It is consolidated code collecting all the laws relating
to the procedure to be adopted by civil courts. It is designed to facilitate justice and further its
ends and not a penal enactment for punishments and penalties. The provisions of the code,
should be construed liberally and technical objections should not be allowed to defeat substantial
justice.

1
www.legalserviceindia.com
2
(2007) 2 SCC 551

4|Page
Suit

The word ‘suit’ has wider application. There is a little difference between the suits under the
CPC 1908 and the other civil suits. This is under the CPC the suits is instituted by the
presentation of the plaint which has particular format and in other suits like the suit for divorce,
the same is instituted by mere presentation of the petition by or on behalf of either spouse. It
should be mentioned that ‘suit’ is different from the ‘writs’. Suit is instituted to enforce the legal
rights (not the political and religious) only; but the ‘writs’ are concerned with the enforcement of
the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Part III of the Indian Constitution. Only the High Courts
and the Supreme Court have the Writ jurisdiction governed by the Indian Constitution.

The term ‘suit’ has not been defined in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. According to Chamber’s
20th Century Dictionary (1983), it is a generic term of comprehensive signification referring to
any proceeding by one person or persons against another or others in a court of law wherein the
plaintiff pursues the remedy which the law affords him for the redress of any injury or
enforcement of a right, whether at law or in equity. In the Black’s Law Dictionary (7th Edition)
this term is defined as the proceeding initiated by a party or parties against another in the court of
law. According to some other views, ‘suit’ includes appellate proceeding also; but it does not
include an execution proceeding. Ordinarily, suit under the CPC is a civil proceeding instituted
by the presentation of a plaint3.

3
www.legalserviceindia.com

5|Page
Jurisdiction

The term ‘jurisdiction’ is not defined in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The word is derived
from the Latin terms ‘juris’ and ‘dicto’ which means “I speak by the law”. It is interesting to note
that the jurisdiction is always granted by the Legislature but the power to determine the
jurisdiction vests in the superior Courts. Two meanings of jurisdiction can be analyzed: (i) The
authority or power of a court to entertain and decide on any judicial proceeding, (ii) The area
over which the power of a court extends4.

By jurisdiction is meant authority by which a Court has to decide matters that are litigated before
it, or to take cognizance of matters presented in a formal way for its decisions. The limits of this
authority are imposed by Statute or Charters or Commissions under which the Court is instituted
and may be extended or restricted by similar means. If no restriction or limitation is imposed, the
jurisdiction is said to be unlimited. A limitation may be either as to the kind or nature of the
actions or the matters of which a particular Court has cognizance or as to the area over which the
jurisdiction extends, or it may partake of both these characteristics.

Sometimes jurisdiction is also defined in terms of ‘power’. It is the power of the court to hear
and determine a cause, to adjudicate and to exercise judicial power in relation to it and to award
the remedies provided by law upon a state of facts proved or admitted and presented to the court
in a formal way for its decision. The concept of jurisdiction thus embraces the power to grant the
remedies provided by law.

Before a court can be held to have jurisdiction to decide a particular matter, it must not only have
jurisdiction to try the suit brought but must also have the authority to pass the orders sought for.
It is not sufficient that it has come within jurisdiction in relation to the subject matter of the suit.
Its jurisdiction must include the power to hear and decide the questions at issue, authority to hear
and decide the particular controversy that has arisen between the parties5.

4
Justice C.K.Takwani (Thakker), Civil Procedure (CPC) with Limitation Act (8th ed. E.Book 2017).
5
Avtar Singh, Code of Civil Procedure (4th ed. Cent. Law Publications 2015).

6|Page
Institution of Suit: the Provisions under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908:

Section 26(1), CPC says that every suit shall be instituted by the presentation of a plaint or in
such other manner as may be prescribed. Sub-section (2) provides that in every plaint, facts shall
be proved by affidavit. The procedural framework relating to the institution of a suit is give
below:

i. Preparing the plaint

ii. Choosing the proper place of suing

iii. Presentation of the plaint

Place of Suing
There are basically three kinds of jurisdictions on the basis of which the place of suing may be
determined. These are

1. Pecuniary Jurisdiction

2. Territorial Jurisdictions, and

3. Subject Matter Jurisdictions

Suits may be of different types. They may relate to movable properties or immovable properties;
they may be based on contracts or torts; they may be matrimonial proceedings, suits for accounts
and so on. The jurisdiction of a court to entertain, deal with and decide a suit may be restricted
by a variety of circumstances and the first thing which is to be determined is the place of suing.
The expression ' place of suing' simply means the venue for trail and it has nothing to do with the
competency of the court. section 15-20 of the Code regulate the forum for the institution of
suits6.

6
Justice C.K.Takwani (Thakker), Civil Procedure (CPC) with Limitation Act (8th ed. E. Book 2017).

7|Page
Pecuniary Jurisdiction
Section 15 Court in which suits to be instituted:- Every suit shall be instituted in the
Court of the lowest grade competent to try it.

Section 15 refers to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. The word competent to try indicate
the competency of the court with respect to the pecuniary jurisdiction. It means, the courts of
lowest grade who has the jurisdiction with respect to pecuniary value shall try the suit at first.

The object of this provision by requiring a suitor to bring his suit in the court of the lowest grade
competent to try it is that courts of higher grades may not be overcrowded with suits. At the
same time it does not oust the jurisdiction of the courts of higher grade, but the higher grade
court should return the plaint in such cases to the plaintiff to be presented to the court of the
lowest grade competent to try it7.

Prima facie, it is the plaintiff’s valuation in the plaint that determines the jurisdiction of the court
and not the amount for which ultimately decree may be passed. Thus, if the pecuniary
jurisdiction of the court of lowest grade is, say, Rs. 10,000/- and the plaintiff filed a suit for
accounts wherein the plaintiff valuation of the suit is well within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the
court but court latter finds on taking the accounts that Rs. 15,000/- are due, the court is not
deprived of its jurisdiction to pass a decree for that amount8.

7
D. N. Mathur, Code of Civil Procedure (3rd ed. Cent. Law Publications 2015).
8
Justice C.K.Takwani (Thakker), Civil Procedure (CPC) with Limitation Act (8th ed. E. Book 2017).

8|Page
Territorial Jurisdiction
Section 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) For 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.

As per Section 16(a) when the suit is for the recovery of immovable property then in such case
the suit shall be instituted only at place where the property is situated. Section 16 is applicable
only if property is situated within India. If it is situated outside India, then suit will be instituted
as per provisions of section 20. If suit is recovery of rent but without the recovery of possession
of property then jurisdiction has to be decided as per section 20 not as per section16.

In Title Adcon Electronincs Pvt. Ltd. v. Daulat9, if suit related only to title of mobvable
property then in such case it will not fall within provisions of section 16. It will be governed by
rules laid down under section 20. If this relief of rent or title are claimed along with recovery of

9
(2201) SC 3712

9|Page
possession then in such case section 16 will apply and suit can be instituted where the property is
situated.

As per section 16(b) when the suit is for the partition of immovable property then in such case
the suit shall be instituted only at place where the property is situated.
In Raja Row v. Rajajah10, the suit for the partition of immovable property where the
immovable property is situated. If property relates to movable property only then in such case
territorial jurisdiction has to be decided as per provision of section 20. The court in this case held
that if suits related to partition of both movable and immovable property then jurisdiction is to be
decided as per section 16 of Cpc.

As per section 16(c) if the suit relates to suit of mortgage in relation to redemption, foreclosure
or sale. Or the suit relates to the creation of charge on such immovable property and the property
is situated within India then suits can be instituted at a place such property is situated.

Section 16(d) provides if suit relates to any of point in relation to immovable property situated
within India. The suit can be instituted the place where such immovable property is situated.
Because of principle of Ejusdem generis, the word any other right has to be read in relation to
clause a,b and c of section 16 that is similar kind. Suits for Injuction, segrogation etc. are covered
under this clause. In Seetha Rama Chetty V Kamala Amma, suit filed in Bangalore for a
property located in Tamilnadu, to determine right and interest in the immoveable property, Court
held that as long as the defendant is residing within the jurisdiction of Bangalore Court, where
the suit is instituted, the suit was maintainable under S.16(d) read with the proviso.

As per section 16(e) if some tort is committed on a immovable property and immovable is
situated within India then in such case the suit can instituted where such property is situated.
Therefore suits relating to torts on immovable property are not covered under scope of section
19.

As per section 16(f) if suit is for the recovery of movable property actually under distraint or
attachment, then suit shall be instituted where the property is situated. This is only clause in
section 16 which relates to movable property. Otherwise all clauses i.e. Section 16a-16e relates
to immovable property.
10
1963 Andh. 474

10 | P a g e
Proviso of this section provides if in cases referred in section 16a-16e court is of opinion that the
relief for compensation so claimed can be entirely obtained through personal appearance of
defendant then in such case suit can be instituted:-

a. Where property is situated, or


b. Where defendant actually and voluntarily resides, or
c. Where defendant personally works for gain, or
d. Where defendant carries on his business.

Equity acts in personam:

The proviso to the section is an application in a modified form of a maxim of Equity, viz.,
“Equity acts in personam”. In England the Chancery Courts had and now the Chancery Division
of the High Courts of Justice has jurisdiction to entertain certain suits respecting immovable
property, though the property might be situate abroad if the relief sought could be obtained
through the personal obedience of the defendant.

The personal obedience of the defendant could be secured only if the defendant resided within
the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court or carried on business within those limits. It’s
essential feature was that the land in respect of which the suit was brought was situate abroad,
but the person of the defendant or his personal property was within the jurisdiction of the court in
which the suit was brought.

In Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF, Universal Ltd.11, Court held that this proviso is based
on the maxim of equity that "Equity in personam". If the court is of the opinion that no evidence
has to be taken from property and relief can be granted only through personal appearance of
parties. Then as per maxim of equity the suit shall be instituted where the parties are.

11
2005 SC 4446

11 | P a g e
Section 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 Court, 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.

Section 17 provides if the property in relation to which suit instituted is situated at different
limits of local courts then the suit can be instituted at any of such courts, but subject to pecuniary
and subject matter jurisdiction.
A suit to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immovable property which is
situate within the jurisdiction of different courts 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.
The object of the section is to avoid multiplicity of suits, but the section is no bar to parties
bringing successive suits where the properties are situate in different jurisdictions12.

12
Sir Dinshaw Fardunji Mulla, Mulla’s the Code of Civil Procedure (19th ed. Lexis Nexis 2017).

12 | P a g e
Section 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 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.

A case may, arise where it is not possible to say with certainty that the property is situate within
the jurisdiction of the one or the other of several Courts.
In such a case, one of these Courts, if it is satisfied that there is such uncertainty, may after
recording a statement to that effect proceed to entertain and dispose of the suit.

13 | P a g e
Section 19. Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables- Where a
suit is for compensation for wrong done to the person or to movable property, if the wrong was
done within the local limits of the jurisdiction of one Court and the defendant resides, or carries
on business, or personally works for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of another
Court, the suit may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff in either of the said Courts.

Illustrations:

(a) A, residing in Delhi, beats B in Calcutta. B may sue A either in Calcutta or in Delhi.

(b) A, residing in Delhi, publishes in Calcutta statements defamatory of B. B may sue A either in
Calcutta or in Delhi.

It has been said that movables follow the person – Mobilia sequuntur personam

According to section 19 if suits relates to:

1. Wrongs done to person


2. Wrongs done to moveable property

Then suit shall be instituted at a place where

I. Wrong is committed, or
II. Defendant actually and voluntarily resides, or
III. Defendant personally works for gain, or
IV. Defendant carries on his business.

Where such wrong consists of a series of acts, a suit can be filed at any place where any of the
acts has been committed. Similarly, where a wrongful act is committed at one place and the
consequences ensue at another place, a suit can be instituted at the option of the plaintiff where
the action took place or consequences ensued13.

Section 19 does not cover all cases of torts. The torts in relation to immovable property instituted
as per section 16 that where property is situated not as per section 19.

13
Justice C.K.Takwani (Thakker), Civil Procedure (CPC) with Limitation Act (8th ed. E. Book 2017).

14 | P a g e
In Sabhash Chandra Jain v. Vidyitt Jain,14 Court held that section 19 only covers the cases of
torts in relation to movable and not suits in relation to immovable property. The other suits in
relation to movable property are covered under section 16 of Cpc.

Section 20: Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of


action arises- Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in Court within
the local limits of whose jurisdiction-

(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the
commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally
works for gain; or

(b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the
suit actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain,
provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not
reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such
institution; or

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

Explanation-A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in
India or, in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate
office, at such place.

Section 20 lay down the place of suing in case of suits other than specified in section 16 and
section 19. Therefore, section 20 is general provision in relation to place of suing. Section 20 of
code has been designated to secure that justice might be brought as near as possible to every
man's hearthstone and that the defendant should not be put to the trouble and expense of
travelling long distances in order to defend himself in cases in which he may be involved15.

1) If the suit relates to disputes referred under section 16a - 16e but property not situated within
India then in such case the jurisdiction will be decided as per section 20.

14
1978 All. 234
15
Laxman Prasad v. Prodigy Electronics Ltd. (2008) 1 SCC 618

15 | P a g e
2) If disputes of immovable property does not relate to any of description under section 16a -16e
then such case, jurisdiction will be decided as per section 20.
3) If dispute relates to movable property other than torts, then jurisdiction is decided as per
section 20.
4) If dispute is any of other description then jurisdiction is decided as per section 20.

According to section 20 the following courts have territorial jurisdiction:-

I. Where the defendant at the time of institution of suit actually and voluntarily resides, or
II. Where the defendant carries on his business, or
III. Where the defendant personally works for gain at time of Institution of suit, or
IV. Where the cause of action wholly or partly arises.
But if there are more than 1 defendants and they are residing at different places or personally
works for gain or carries on his work at different places then suit can be instituted at any place
of residence or personally works for gain or where carries on his business but with-
a. Leave of Court; or
b. Acquiesce of other defendants.

In Laxman Prasad v. Prodigy Electronics Ltd.16, Supreme Court held that the purpose behind
section 20 i.e. territorial jurisdiction is to avoid destruction of evidence and exploitation of
process of law by instituting frivolous or vague litigation against defendant.

Voluntarily Resides:

Under section 20 words "actually resides" mentioned means the place where defendant intends to
reside will be deemed to be his residence. The intention can be gathered from facts and
circumstances concerning defendant. eg:- the address used by defendant as postal address, the
place where he is currently residing and time period of his residing there etc. these things will be
considered to find where the defendant intends to reside for purpose of his actual residence17.

16
(2008) 1 SCC 618
17
Satya v. Teja Singh 1975 SC 105

16 | P a g e
In Jeewanti Pandey v. Kisimn Chandra18, question before court whether Jail can be considered
to be residence of defendant when going under imprisonment? Supreme Court held that the Jail
cannot be treated to be residence for the purpose of section 20 because word 'Voluntarily resides'
mentioned and jail cannot be considered as voluntarily residence.

Cause of action:

“Cause of action” means the cause or the set of circumstances which leads up to a suit. It may
compendiously be defined as being the fact or facts which establish or give rise to a right of
action or the existence of which entitles a party to seek redress in a court of law.
Where the cause of action is fraud, discovery of fraud is no part of the cause of action. The cause
of action must be antecedent to the institution of the suit, and no cause of action can be founded
on any allegations made in the proceedings. Every plaint must disclose a cause of action when
alone the court will be able to proceed to a determination of the dispute.

In ABC Lamnart Private Ltd V AP Agencies19, held, the jurisdiction of Court in matter of
contract will depend on the situs of contract and Cause of Action arising through connecting
factors. Further held, the parties may agree to vest jurisdiction in one of the many competent
Court and such Ouster Clause is valid if the clause is explicit , precise and unambiguous and not
hit by Ss. 23 and 28 of Indian Contract Act.

In case of contract when suit is for its breach or for specific performance of contract, suit can be
instituted at following places:

I. place where the contract was executed, or


II. place where contract

Only these two cases are considered to be the places where cause of action arises.

18
1982 SC 3
19
1989 SC 1239

17 | P a g e
Section 21: Objections to jurisdiction- No objection as to the place off suit will be
allowed by an appellate or revisional Court unless the following three conditions are satisfied-

(i) The objection was taken in the Court of first instance;

(ii) It was taken at the earliest possible opportunity and in cases where issues are settled at or
before such settlement; and

(iii) There has been a consequent failure of justice; all the above conditions must co-exist.

The object underlying section 21 is to protect honest litigants and to avoid harassment to
plaintiffs who have bona fide and in good faith initiated proceedings in a court which is later on
found to be wanting in jurisdiction. Dishonest litigants cannot take advantage of this provision.

It is a fundamental rule that a decree of a court without jurisdiction is nullity. Halsbury rightly
states: “where by reason of any limitation imposed by statute, charter or commission, a court is
without jurisdiction to entertain any particular action or matter, neither the acquiesce nor the
express consent of the parties can confer jurisdiction upon the court nor can consent give a court
jurisdiction if a condition which goes to the root of the jurisdiction has not been performed or
fulfilled.”

In Kiran Singh V. Chaman Paswan20, court held that an error is committed by the court in
exercising the jurisdiction with respect to pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction, the decision so
given will not be void, it will be considered as irregular exercise of jurisdiction. No doubt, party
has a right to raise the issue but at the earliest possible time and once the court proceeded with
the matter and given the decision the same cannot be raised at the appellate stage at all.

In Hira Lal v. Kali Nath21, where the suit which ought to have been filed in an Agra court was
filed in the Bombay HC with the leave of the court, it was held that the objection to such
jurisdiction falls within section 21 of code.

20
AIR 1954 SC 340
21
AIR 1962 SC 199

18 | P a g e
Conclusion
When a suit is related to immovable property, the court within whose local jurisdiction property
is situated have the jurisdiction to try the matter. In case when a part of the property is situated in
the local limit of the other courts as well, I mean when the property is situated in more than one
territorial limits of the courts than in that case the courts in whose territorial limit any portion of
the property is situated have the jurisdiction and in such situation it is the plaintiff who will
decide which court to approach. Where it is not possible to say with certainty that the property is
situated within the jurisdiction of the one or the other of several courts, in such case one of these
several courts, if it is satisfied that there is such uncertainty, may after recording a statement to
that effect proceed to entertain and dispose of the suit.

When suit is related to moveable property, as we know moveable property follow the person
and hence suit may be brought at the option of the plaintiff either at the place where the wrong is
committed or where the defendant resides, carries on business or personally works for gain.
Where such wrongs consists of series of acts, a suit may be filed at any place where any of the
acts has been committed. Similarly, where a wrongful act is committed at one place and the
consequence ensue at another place, a suit may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff where
the action took place or the consequences ensued.

A suit for compensation for wrong (tort) to a person may be instituted at the option of the
plaintiff either where such wrong is committed, or where defendant resides, carries on business
or personally works for gain.

Jurisdiction as to Subject-Matter

Different courts have been empowered to decide different types of suits. Certain courts have no
jurisdiction to entertain certain suits. For examples, suits for testamentary succession, divorce
cases, probate proceedings, insolvency matters, etc. cannot be entertained by a Court of Civil
Judge (Junior Division). This is called jurisdiction as to subject matter.

In case, court took up the matter which is not been allotted to it, that is the matter is beyond the
subject matter competency, what will be the status of the decision given by the court in such
situations.

19 | P a g e
Bibliography
BOOKS

1. Justice C.K.Takwani (Thakker), Civil Procedure (CPC) with Limitation Act (8th ed. E.Book
2017).
2. Sir Dinshaw Fardunji Mulla, Mulla’s the Code of Civil Procedure (19th ed. Lexis Nexis
2017).
3. D. N. Mathur, Code of Civil Procedure (3rd ed. Cent. Law Publications 2015).
4. Avtar Singh, Code of Civil Procedure (4th ed. Cent. Law Publications 2015).

Websites
1. http://www.legalserviceindia.com
2. http://www.scconline.com/
3. https://indiankanoon.org
4. https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com
5. https://definitions.uslegal.com/
6. http://www.legalcrystal.com

20 | P a g e

Você também pode gostar