Place of Suing

 Place of Suing

The expression 'place of suing' simply means venue for trial and it has nothing to do with the competency of the court to try any case. Section 15 to 20 of the Code regulate the forum for the institution of suits.

General rule as to pecuniary jurisdiction: Section 15 provides that every suit shall be instituted in the court of lowest grade competent to try it. The object is to prevent over burdening of higher courts and afford convenience to the parties and witnesses. Section 15 refers to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court and it is the plaintiff's valuation that determines the jurisdiction of the court. 

It must be noted here that if the court finds the plaint to be undervalued and after being given time plaintiff fails to correct the valuation then the plaint will be liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(b).

Court must have pecuniary jurisdiction at the time of filing of the suit. Subsequent change in valuation of the suit does not affect the jurisdiction of the court. Supreme Court in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340 held that a decree passed by a court of higher grade is a mere irregularity covered by Section 99 and it is not a nullity.

Rules relating to territorial jurisdiction

For the purpose of territorial jurisdiction of a court, suits may be divided into four classes:

• Suits in respect of immovable property
• Suits for movable property
• Suits for compensation for wrong (tort)
• Other suits

(1) Immovable property [Section 16-18]: Sections 16 to 18 deal with suits relating to immovable property. Section 16 mentions following kinds of suits:

(a) Suits for recovery of immovable property with or without rent or profits.

(b) Suits for partition of immovable property.

(c) Suits for foreclosure, sale or redemption in case of mortgage of a charge upon immovable property.

(d) Suits for determination of any other right or interest in immovable property.

(c) Suits for compensations for wrong to immovable property.

(d) Suits for recovery of movable property under distraint or attachment.

These suits must be filed in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate subject to pecuniary and other limitations prescribed by law.

Proviso to Section 16 further provides that a suit to obtain relief respecting immovable property or compensation for wrong done to such property held by or on behalf of defendant may, where the relief sought can be entirely obtained through his personal obedience, be instituted in the court within whose Jurisdiction:

(a) Property is situate, or

(b) Defendant resides or carries on business or personally works for gain.

Proviso of Section 16 is based on the maxim equity acts in personam.

 (2) Movable property [Section 19]: This section is based on the maxim mobilia sequuntur personam i.e. movable follow the person. Section 19 incorporates the same principle and provides that a suit for compensation for wrong done to movable properly may be brought at the option of the plaintiff either at place where:

(a) Wrong is committed, or 

(b) Where the defendant resides, carries on business or personally works for gain.

For example, a suit for compensation for wrong done to movable property at A, where the plaintiff resides at B and defendant at C, may be filed either at A, where the wrong was done or at C where defendant resides. But no suit will lie at B where plaintiff resides.

(3) Compensation for wrong [Section 19]: Section 19 also provides that a suit for compensation for wrong to a person may be instituted at the option of plaintiff either:

(I) Where such wrong is committed or

(ii) Where the defendant resides or carries on business or personally works for gain.

For example, A, resident of Jamshedpur, publishes a libel in Darbhanga against B causing him damages B may sue A either at Dharbanga where tort is committed or at Jamshedpur where defendant 'A' resides, 

(4) Other suits [Section 20]: Section 20 provides for all the cases not covered by any of the foreign rules. All such suits may be filed at the plaintiff option in any of the following court wiz: 

(i) Where the cause of action, wholly or partly arises; or

(ii) Where the defendant resides or carries on business or personally works for gain or

(iii) Where there are two or more defendants, any of them resides or carrier on business or personally works for gain provided that in such a case either the leave of court is obtained or the defendant who do not reside or carry on business or personally work for gain at that place acquiesce in such institution of suit.

For example, A is a tradesman in Calcutta 'B' carries on business in Delhi. 'B' by his agent in Calcutta buys goods of 'A' and request 'A' to deliver them to Railway. 'A' delivers the goods accordingly in Calcutta. In such a case, A may sue B for the price of goods in case of breach either in Calcutta where cause of action arose or in Delhi where B carries on business. [see Illustration (a) to Section 20].

Objections to Jurisdiction

Section 21 of the Code lays down the rule regarding objection as to jurisdiction of civil courts. It is fundamental rule that decree of court without jurisdiction is a nullity. This however, does not apply to territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction in as much as objection to such jurisdiction are regarded as merely technical and can be raised when the conditions mentioned under Section 21 are fulfilled. [Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340]

Objection as to territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction: Section 21(1) and 21 (2) provide that no objection as to the place of suing or pecuniary jurisdiction shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court

(a) Unless such objection was taken in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement; and

(b) Unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.

All these conditions must co-exist. Supreme Court in Sneh Lata Goel v. Pushplata, (2019) 3 SCC 594 held that Section 21 of the Code makes it clear that the objection as to want of territorial jurisdiction does not go to the root of the jurisdiction. It does not constitute inherent lack of jurisdiction.

Objection as to execution proceedings: Section 21(3) provides that no objection as to the local limits of jurisdiction of the executing court shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court:-

(a) Unless such objection was taken in the executing court at the earliest possible opportunity; and

(b) Unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.

Bar on suit to set aside decree on objection as to place of suing: Section 21-A provides that no suit can be filed to set aside a decree passed by the court on an objection as to place of suing. This provision was inserted by Amendment Act of 1976.