JURISDICTION

JURISDICTION

The term 'jurisdiction' is not defined in the Code. It is derived from the Latin word 'juris and 'dicto' which means 'I speak by the law'. Jurisdiction means the extent of the authority of a court to hear and determine a cause or a matter prescribed with reference to the subject matter, pecuniary value and local limits. It is a power of the court to entertain and decide the matters before it. Jurisdiction is determined on the basis of averments made in the plaint. While deciding the jurisdiction the substance of the plaint matters and not the form. So plaintiff cannot circumvent the provisions of law to invest the court with the jurisdiction. Every court is entitled to determine whether it has the jurisdiction to decide a particular dispute before it or not. Such question must be decided at the commencement of the proceedings. It is well settled that consent cannot confer nor take away jurisdiction of the court. Similarly when the court has jurisdiction to decide the dispute, it cannot be taken away by the parties through an agreement. It must be taken note that it is the legislature which confers or takes away the jurisdiction of the court. 

Kinds of jurisdiction

Jurisdiction may be classified into following broad categories:-

1. Pecuniary jurisdiction Section 6 & 15 C.P.C.
2. Territorial jurisdiction section 16-18 C.P.C.
3. Subject matter jurisdiction

1. Pecuniary jurisdiction: Section 6 of the Code provides that the court will have jurisdiction only over those suits, the amount or value of the subject matter of which does not exceed pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction. Some court have unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction and others have jurisdiction to try the suit only up to a particular amount. Section 15 of the Code provides that every suit shall be instituted in a court of lowest grade competent to try it. It refers to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court.

2. Territorial jurisdiction: Every court has a certain local limit outside of which it cannot exercise the jurisdiction. These limits are fixed by statute. For example, High Court has territorial jurisdiction for the whole territory of the State and Supreme Court has jurisdiction throughout the territory of India. Sections 16-18 of the Code deals with the territorial jurisdiction of the suit.

3. Subject matter jurisdiction: It means different types of suits or subject matters which a court is competent to decide. Certain courts can decide only a particular subject matter. For example, Insolvency Court can decide matters relating to insolvency, Family Courts can decide matters relating to matrimonial disputes only. These courts cannot decide other matters like specific performance, declaration, partition etc. Decree passed by the court without subject matter jurisdiction is a nullity. It amounts to inherent lack of jurisdiction. For example, Family Court can only decide matters relating to family dispute, if the Family Court decides revenue dispute then the decree passed will be a nullity. Supreme Court in Chiranjilal Srilal Goenka v. Jasjit Singh and Ors., (1993) 2 SCC 507 observed that decree passed by a court without jurisdiction on the subject matter goes to the root of the matter. Such decree is a nullity and non est.

Supreme Court in Hiralal v. Kalinath, AIR 1962 SC 199 pointed out that defect of jurisdiction with respect to pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction does not go to the root of the matter. Decree passed in such a defect is not a nullity.

Jurisdiction of Civil Courts

Fundamental principle of law is ubi jus ibi remedium i.e. where there is a right there is a remedy. Accordingly if a person has a right which has been violated then that person can pursue appropriate remedy to redress the violation of his right. Section 9 of the Code is legislative manifestation of the maxim ubi jus ibi remedium It provides for the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in reference to subject matter. It provides that the court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature excepting the suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. Thus, following conditions must be fulfilled in order to invoke Section 9:.

1. The suit must be a civil nature, and

2. The cognizance of such a suit should not have been expressly or impliedly barred.

The word 'shall' makes it mandatory. No court can refuse to exercise the jurisdiction if the conditions mentioned in the section are fulfilled. Supreme Court in Abdul Gafur v. State of Uttrakhand, 2008 (11) SCALE 263 observed that under Section 9 every person has an inherent right to file a suit if conditions of Section 9 are met.

Suits of Civil Nature

Meaning: The term 'civil' is not defined in the Code. According to the dictionary meaning, it pertains to private rights and remedies of a citizen as distinguished from criminal, political, religious, etc. In Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthonia, 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 286 Supreme Court held that the expression 'civil nature' is wider than the expression 'civil proceedings'. Thus, a suit is of civil nature if the principal question therein relates to the determination of a civil right and its enforcement. The section would be available in every case where the dispute has the characteristic of affecting one's rights which are not only civil but of civil nature. The subject matter of the suit and not the status of parties determine whether the suit is of civil nature or not.

Nature and Scope: The expression 'suits of civil nature' will cover private rights and obligations of a citizen. Political and religious questions are not covered by that expression e.g. suits relating to right to property, damages for civil wrong, etc. are of civil nature.

Explanation I of Section 9 lays down that a suit in which a right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of civil nature notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of questions as to religious rites or ceremonies. Political or religious questions are not covered in the expression 'suits of civil nature'. A suit in which principal question relates to caste or religion is not a suit of civil nature. But if the adjudication of matter incidentally involves the determination relating to caste or political question then it does not cease to be a suit of civil nature.

Explanation II of Section 9 [added by Amendment Act of 1976] lays down that a suit relating to an office is maintainable whether or not any fees is attached to the office or whether or not it is attached to a particular place.