Place Of Suing

S U B J E C T- M AT T E R , TERRITORIAL AND PECUNIARY JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction as to

Subjectmatter

Pecuniary (Section 6 & 15)

Territorial (Section 1620)

Objections to Jurisdiction (Section 21)

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

 Subject-Matter is not specifically provided under CPC.  It is dealt by Section 9 of CPC.  Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature unless barred.  Subject-matter lies at the roots of the suit.  If Court does not have Subject-matter jurisdiction and the Court passes a decree. It is inherent lack of jurisdiction and the decree would be per se void.

Pecuniary Jurisdiction (Section 6 & 15)  Section 6 – The Court shall have jurisdiction to try suit which is with in the pecuniary limits of such Court.

 Section 15 – Every suit shall be instituted in the court of lowest grade competent to try it.  Object is that Higher Courts shall not be over-crowded with suits.(Bhuwaneshwari Kuer v. Raghuwansh, AIR 1954)  S.15 is rule of procedure and not of jurisdiction hence it does not oust the jurisdiction of Higher Court.  Pecuniary limits means valuation of suit described by the plaintiff.  Party can not value a suit arbitrary with the object of filing a suit in court of his own choice. (Nandita Bose v. Ratanlal Nahata, AIR 1987 SC 1947)

Pecuniary Jurisdiction (Section 6 & 15)

 Lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, and Decree passed by such Court. It is case of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction and the decree passed would be irregular and not void.  Here in such cases, failure of justice will be examined in order to set aside decree passed. DELHI

UTTARAKHAND

HARYANA

High Court (2 Crores – unlimited)

High Court

High Court

District Court (20 Lakh – 2 Crores)

District Court

District Court

Civil Judge (Less than 20 Lakhs)

Civil Judge (Senior Division) (Unlimited)

Civil Judge (Unlimited)

Civil Judge (Junior Division) (Up to 1 lakh)

Territorial Jurisdiction (Section 16-20)  Section 20: other suits to be instituted where defendant reside or cause of action arises. Suit shall be instituted in a court within local limits of whose jurisdiction (i) Cause of action wholly or partly arises or (ii). Where the defendant resides, or carries on business or personally works for gain; (iii) Where there are two or more defendants, any of them resides, or carries on business or personally works for gain – (a) with the leave of Court or (b) other defendants agree to the suit instituted.

Explanation of Section 20:  A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principle 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.  As per explanation suit can be instituted at two places : Place of business and where cause of action arises.  If Corporation has principle office and branch office. What would be place of business for institution of suit?

Issue: If Corporation has principle office and branch office. What would be place of business for institution of suit?  Patel Roadways Ltd., Bombay v. M/s. Prasad Trading Co., AIR 1992 SC 1514.

 New Moga Transport Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2004 SC

 Section 16: suit to be instituted where subjectmatter situated. a) For recovery of immovable property with or without rent or profits. b) For partition of immovable property; c) For foreclosure, sale or redemption in case of martgage or charge upon immovable property; d) For determination of any other right or interest in immovable property; e) For compensation for wrong to immovable property; f) For recovery of movable property under distraint or attachment.

 Section 17: Suit for immovable property situated within jurisdiction of different Courts.  Suit can be filed in any Court with in whose jurisdiction any portion of property is situated.  For valuation of subject matter, entire value of property must be cognizable by the Court.  Pecuniary jurisdiction must be fulfilled.

 Section 18 : place of institution of suit where local limits of jurisdiction of Courts are uncertain.  Example : Suit for partition.

Section 18 (1)

Grounds for Uncertainty

Section 18 (2) No Grounds for Uncertainty + Not Recorded

Recorded Reason/ Not recorded

Failure of Justice

No Failure of Justice

Decree/Order is valid and final

Court may set aside Decree

No setting aside

 Section 19: Suit for immovable property situated within jurisdiction of different Courts.

Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal & Anr., Appeal filed against order passed by ADJ Delhi and confirmed by High Court of Delhi. Issues:  Whether ADJ, Delhi has jurisdiction to try the matter?  Can jurisdiction be conferred by mutual agreement upon a court which does not have jurisdiction?

Facts:  The appellant entered into a 'plot buyer agreement' with DLF Universal Limited, respondent No.1 on August 14, 1985 for purchase of a residential plot admeasuring 264 sq. mtrs. in Residential Colony, DLF Qutub Enclave Complex, Gurgaon, Haryana.

Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal & Anr.,

Facts:  the agreement was made in Delhi. The Head Office of respondent No.1 was situated in Delhi. Payment was to be made in Delhi.  the respondent no.1 unilaterally and illegally cancelled the agreement on April 04, 1988 under the excuse that the appellant had not paid dues towards construction of Modular House to respondent No. 2 (DLF Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd).

 The appellant was constrained to Suit in the High Court of Delhi for specific performance of the agreement and for permanent injunction.

 In 1989, while filing W.S., jurisdiction of Delhi Court was admitted by the Defendants.  Later on due to increased pecuniary jurisdiction, the suit came to be transferred from High Court of Delhi to District Court, Delhi and issues were framed in February, 1997.  In August 1997, i.e. after more than eight years of the filing of the written statement, the defendants filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment in the written statement by raising an objection as to jurisdiction of Delhi Court to entertain the suit.  the trial court by an order dated May 25, 1998 upheld the contention of the defendants and ruled that Delhi Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. High Court also dismissed the petition.

Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal & Anr.,

Contention by Appellant  the defendants were having their head Office at Delhi, the agreement had been entered into at Delhi, payment was to be made and in fact made at Delhi, breach of agreement took place at Delhi and hence Delhi Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit.  It was also submitted that the parties had agreed that the Delhi Court alone had jurisdiction in all matters arising out of the transaction.  It further contended that as Clause 28 of the agreement specifically provided that the transaction would be subject to the jurisdiction of Delhi Court, institution of suit in Delhi Court by the plaintiff could not have been objected to and no order could have been passed by the trial court holding that it had no jurisdiction.

Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal & Anr.,

Contention by Respondent  It was argued that the suit relates to specific performance of agreement relating to immovable property and in accordance with the provisions of Section 16 of the Civil Procedure Code, such suit can be instituted where the immovable property is situate.  if the court had no jurisdiction, parties by consent cannot confer jurisdiction on it.  Such a case is different from a case in which two or more courts have jurisdiction and parties have agreed to jurisdiction of one court. According to him, Section 20 of the Code would apply where two courts have jurisdiction and the parties agree as to jurisdiction of one such courts by restricting their right to that forum instead of the other. When Delhi Court had no jurisdiction whatsoever, no reliance could be placed either on Section 20 of the Code or on Clause 28 of the agreement.

Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal & Anr.,

Supreme Court Judgement  In the instant case, the proviso has no application. Suit was covered by Clause (d) of Section 16 of the Code and the proviso had no application.  In our opinion, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the parties had agreed that Delhi Court alone had jurisdiction in the matters arising out of the transaction has also no force.  Plain reading of Section 20 of the Code leaves no room of doubt that it is a residuary provision and covers those cases not falling within the limitations of Sections 15 to 19.