CO-RELATION BETWEEN JURISDICTION AND RELIEF UNDER CIVIL LAW IN

INDIA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT..........................................................................................................1

B. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................1

C. OBJECTIVE...........................................................................................................................3

D. RESEARCH QUESTIONS........................................................................................................4

E. SIGNIFICANCE......................................................................................................................4

F. SCOPE &RESEARCH METHODOLOGY................................................................................5

G. LITERATURE REVIEW..........................................................................................................5

H. JURISDICTION.......................................................................................................................6

I. RELIEF..................................................................................................................................7

J. PECUNIARY JURISDICTION................................................................................................10

K. JURISDICTION TO GRANT INTERIM RELIEF......................................................................12

L. CASE ANALYSIS.................................................................................................................13

M. REFERENCES...................................................................................................................15

1
 A. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

On the completion of this project, we take the opportunity of thanking the people who
contributed in the completion of it, without whose aid, contribution and help this project
wouldn’t have seen practicability.

First we extend our heartfelt gratitude to our Faculty whose continuous guidance and support
provided us with the much needed impetus and gave us a better insight into the topic. I thank all
members of the Library and IT Staff for providing us the assistance anytime needed.

We also thank my friends and batch mates for providing us the much needed aid whenever
needed. Most importantly, we would like to thank our parents for providing me the much-needed
force for accomplishing this project.

B. INTRODUCTION

The judicial system prevalent comprises of the following courts: Supreme Court, High Court,
District Judge’s Court, Subordinate Judge’s Court and the Munsif’s court. The Munsifs generally
try civil suits of limited pecuniary jurisdiction as they are empowered generally, and also in some
cases specifically under the various civil courts’ Acts in the States. The District and Subordinate
Judges’ courts are of unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction.

The test of jurisdiction over the subject matter is whether the court or tribunal can decide the
case at all and not whether the court has authority to issue a particular kind of order in the course
of deciding the same. A court is said to have jurisdiction of the subject matter of a particular
controversy if the court has authority to hear and decide causes of a class to which the particular
controversy belongs. In defining jurisdiction of the subject matter in these terms, the courts have
emphasized that the jurisdiction of a court depends upon the right to decide the case and not
upon the merits of its decision. It is well-settled law that jurisdiction of the court is to be
determined on the basis of allegations made in the plaint. The pith and substance of the plaint
allegations have to be kept in mind; so also, the pith and substance of the relief sought. It is the
choice of the plaintiff to choose his forum. It is another thing that the plaintiff fails to establish
his case before such forum. The plea of lack of jurisdiction can be raised at any time even in

2
second appeal, so also on the execution side. There is no denying the fact that the allegations
made in the plaint decide the forum.

The jurisdiction does not depend upon the defence taken by the defendants in the written
statement. A litigant having a grievance of civil nature has, independently of any statute, a right
to institute a suit in the civil court unless its cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.
Exclusion of jurisdiction of civil court is not to be readily inferred and such exclusion must be
either express or implied. In all types of civil disputes, civil court has inherent jurisdiction as per
s 9, unless a part of that jurisdiction is curbed out from such jurisdiction, expressly or by
necessary implication, by any statutory provision and conferred on any other tribunal or
authority. It is no doubt true that the jurisdiction of the civil court cannot be easily excluded in
every case, but the jurisdiction of the civil court is excluded where the statute gives finality to the
orders and to find the same, the scheme of the Act has to be necessarily taken into consideration.
The second thing to be considered is, if under the statute a liability is created, then it is necessary
to find out as to whether the statute creates an effective machinery for the redressal of the
grievances pertaining to any law and facts arising therein.7Section 9 of the Code of Civil
Procedure provides that whenever a question arises before the civil court whether its jurisdiction
is excluded expressly or by necessary implication, the court naturally feels inclined to consider
whether the remedy afforded by an alternative provision prescribed by a special statute is
sufficient or adequate. In cases, where inclusion of civil courts jurisdiction is expressly provided
for, the consideration as to the scheme of the statute in question and the adequacy or sufficiency
of the remedy provided for by it, may be relevant, but it cannot be decisive. Where exclusion is
pleaded as a matter of necessary implication, such consideration would be very important and
inconceivable and it might become even decisive.

The gradation of courts has been specified before. Under section 15 every suit shall be instituted
in the court of the lowest grade competent to try it. “Competent” means having jurisdiction to
try. Ordinarily jurisdiction has reference to: (a) subject-matter; (b) parties; (c) particular question
which falls for decision and (d) pecuniary value. Obviously, “competency” in section 15 has
reference to pecuniary jurisdiction.

Section 17 provides for proper guidelines regarding the place of suing for suits contemplated in
section 16 where the immovable properties which are the subject matter of the said suit are

3
situated within the pecuniary jurisdiction of more than one court. In such a case, the suit can be
filed in any of those courts provided the court in which such suit is filed has pecuniary
jurisdiction to try the whole suit. There must be a single cause of action for filing the suit in
respect of the properties situated within the jurisdiction of different courts.1

Jurisdiction means the extent of the authority of a Court to administer justice. It may be of three
kinds: (1) Pecuniary Jurisdiction; (2) Territorial Jurisdiction and (3) Jurisdiction as regards the
nature of the suit. The bar on a Small Causes Court from trying suits, the value whereof exceeds
a given monetary limit is an example of pecuniary jurisdiction. The rule that a Court cannot try a
suit for immovable property situated beyond certain local limits relates to the territorial
jurisdiction of the Court. The exemption of certain types of suits for example partnership suits
from the cognizance of Small Causes Courts relates to the jurisdiction of a Court with regard to
the nature of the suit. Then the jurisdiction may be original or appellate. In the exercise of its
original jurisdiction a Court entertains original suits i.e. suits filed in that Court. When exercising
its appellate jurisdiction a Court hears appeal from decrees passed by Subordinate Courts.
Section 6 refers to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Courts. The expression “subject-matter”
refers not to the property involved in the suit but the relief claimed and it is that which
determines the jurisdiction. When a Court has no jurisdiction in a particular suit, the parties
cannot by mutual consent, confer such jurisdiction on the Court. No amount of consent or waiver
can create jurisdiction. Furthermore, section 6 refers only to the Court’s power to entertain a suit.

C. OBJECTIVE

Our main objective is to study the relation between jurisdiction of the civil court and the relief
sought by the parties. In this regard, we will examine the concept of pecuniary jurisdiction and
jurisdiction in case of interim relief. In the end, we will observe a few case laws dealing with the
situations of lack of jurisdiction and exclusion of jurisdiction.

1
Lakshibai v Madhankar Vinayak Kulkarni, AIR 1968 Mys 82 : (1967) 1 Mys LJ 27.

4
 D. RESEARCH QUESTIONS

 Whether tribunals the Civil Court's jurisdiction must be excluded if there is inadequate
“

remedy in a suit?
 What are the various aspects of a pecuniary jurisdiction?
 What conditions need to be fulfilled when a court grants interim relief?
 At what stage a challenge can be made to the jurisdiction in such cases?
 Is there any presumption as to the jurisdiction in case of peculiarly jurisdiction?
 What are the general principles with respect to the relief sought and jurisdiction of a
court?
 Whether there is an express bar on the jurisdiction of the court as per section 6 if the
remedies are not sufficient?
”

E. SIGNIFICANCE

Jurisdiction means the extent of the authority of a Court to administer justice. It may be of three
kinds: (1) Pecuniary Jurisdiction; (2) Territorial Jurisdiction and (3) Jurisdiction as regards the
nature of the suit. The bar on a Small Causes Court from trying suits, the value whereof exceeds
a given monetary limit is an example of pecuniary jurisdiction. We will study that section 6
refers to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Courts. Further, the expression “subject-matter” refers
not to the property involved in the suit but the relief claimed and it is that which determines the
jurisdiction. When a Court has no jurisdiction in a particular suit, the parties cannot by mutual
consent, confer such jurisdiction on the Court. No amount of consent or waiver can create
jurisdiction.

F. SCOPE &RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The method of research opted by me in this project would be doctrinal research from both
primary and secondary sources. The data will be collected and tabulated and analyzed from both
primary and secondary sources of information. Majority of research work shall be done via
Articles, Websites and Other online sources.

5
 G. LITERATURE REVIEW

(1) Sarkar's Commentary Onf The Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908

This commentary talks about pecuniary jurisdiction. Pecuniary means ‘related to capital.’ It
“

approaches the question of whether the court is competent to try the case of the financial value.
The code allows analyzing the case unless the suit’s value exceeds the financial limit of the
court. Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure commands the organization of the suit in the
court of the low grade. It refers to pecuniary jurisdiction of Civil court. It is a course of the
method and it does not affect the jurisdiction of the court. The main objective of establishing
pecuniary jurisdiction is to prevent the court of a higher level from getting burdened and to
provide assistance to the parties.
”

(2) Mulla’s the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

This book explains jurisdiction as the authority of a Court to administer justice. It mentions three
kinds: (1) Pecuniary Jurisdiction; (2) Territorial Jurisdiction and (3) Jurisdiction as regards the
nature of the suit. Further, it states that the bar on a Small Causes Court from trying suits, the
value whereof exceeds a given monetary limit is an example of pecuniary jurisdiction. Section 6
refers to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Courts. The expression “subject-matter” refers not to
the property involved in the suit but the relief claimed and it is that which determines the
jurisdiction. When a Court has no jurisdiction in a particular suit, the parties cannot by mutual
consent, confer such jurisdiction on the Court. No amount of consent or waiver can create
jurisdiction. Furthermore, section 6 refers only to the Court’s power to entertain a suit.

(3) Halsbury's Laws of India (Civil Procedure)

This book specifically deals with the jurisdiction to grant Interim relief is in the aid of and
ancillary to the main relief available to a party at the conclusion of a suit or other proceedings.
The object of granting interim relief is to evolve a workable formula keeping in mind the pros
and cons of the matter by striking a delicate balance between the interest of the plaintiff if

6
interim relief is refused and interest of the defendant if it is granted. 2 The power to grant interim
relief is in the discretion of the court and is inherent in every court of competent jurisdiction.
Thus, where an income tax appellate tribunal refused to grant a stay during the pendency of
appeal on the ground that it had no such power; the order was set aside on the ground that an
express grant of statutory power carries with it by necessary implication the authority to use all
reasonable means to make that grant effective. A court at the time of passing the final order is
bound to consider the interim orders passed earlier and if it holds that no interim relief ought to
have been granted it must restore the status quo ante and undo the injustice caused to the
opposite party. However, interim orders passed by courts on certain considerations are not
precedents for other cases based on similar facts.3

H. JURISDICTION

The word ‘jurisdiction’ is derived from ‘juris’ and ‘dicto’. It refers to the right of administering
justice by means of law and includes every act from taking of cognisance in a matter to the final
disposal of a suit. Thus, jurisdiction means the power or authority of a court to inquire into the
facts, to apply the law, and to pronounce a judgment and to carry it into execution. Juridically,
the concept ‘jurisdiction of a court’ comprises4 territorial jurisdiction, pecuniary jurisdiction and
jurisdiction as to subject matter, and implies the authority by which a court decides the matters
that are litigated before it or the authority by which it takes cognizance of matters presented in a
formal way for its decision. The limits on the jurisdiction of a court are imposed by the statute,
charter or commission under which the court is constituted and may be extended or restricted by
similar means. A limitation may either be as to the kind or nature of the matters that may be filed
before a court or as to the area over which jurisdiction extends or both. Where no restriction is
imposed jurisdiction, is said to be unlimited. A court or tribunal cannot confer jurisdiction on
itself by deciding a jurisdictional fact wrongly.4

The jurisdiction1 of a court to try a suit is an essential precondition for the filing of the suit
before it. Where a court lacks inherent jurisdiction to try a matter, express consent of the parties,
2
Shiv Kumar Chadha v Municipal Corpn of Delhi (1993) 3 SCC 161.
3
Empire Industries Ltd v Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 662.
4
Raza Textiles Ltd, Rampur v Income-Tax Officer, Rampur, AIR 1973 SC 1362

7
waiver or acquiescence cannot create it. A defect as to the inherent jurisdiction of a court with
regard to a matter, whether pecuniary or territorial, strikes at the very authority of the court to
pass a decree and cannot be cured even by the consent of the parties to a suit. Conversely, where
a court has jurisdiction, consent, waiver, acquiescence or estoppel cannot take it away. A decree
passed by a court lacking jurisdiction is a nullity and its invalidity can be set up as a defence,
when the decree is being enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution or in collateral
proceedings.

A distinction must be drawn between lack of jurisdiction and erroneous exercise of jurisdiction.
The former strikes at the root of the exercise and want of jurisdiction may vitiate the proceedings
rendering them and the orders passed therein a nullity. 5 On the other hand, an error either of fact
or law, in the exercise of jurisdiction, by a court or tribunal, which enjoys inherent jurisdiction to
try a matter, will not vitiate the legality and validity of the proceedings unless they are set aside
as per the procedure laid down under the law. Examples are where a court decrees a suit even
though it is time-barred or where a tax is imposed as a result of an incorrect interpretation of law.
Where an aggrieved party does not take recourse to the procedure prescribed by law to have the
error corrected the order will stand and cannot be challenged in collateral proceedings on the
basis of it being a nullity. Although, at times it is difficult to precisely demarcate the
distinguishing line between lack of jurisdiction and erroneous exercise of jurisdiction the
difference between the two remains and cannot be lost sight of.6

I. RELIEF

Order VII, rule 7 requires that every plaint shall state specifically the relief which the plaintiff
claims either singly or in the alternative. The same rule applies to any relief claimed by the
defendant in his written statement. General reliefs need not be asked for. When plaintiff seeks
relief in respect of several distinct claims or causes of action founded upon separate and distinct
grounds, they shall be stated as far as may be separately and distinctly. Plaintiff will not be
allowed to bring a second suit on the same cause of action in order to obtain relief which he
might have obtained in the first suit. Relief not founded on the pleadings should not as a general
rule be granted. Courts will be slow to throw out a claim on a mere technicality of pleading when
5
Kiran Singh v Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340
6
Ujjam Bai v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1621

8
the substance of the thing is there and no prejudice is caused to the other side. In construing the
plaint, the court must have regard to all the relevant allegations made and look at the substance
of the matter and not its form.7

A co-sharer, who has no right to exclusive possession to the exclusion of other co-sharer,
brought a suit for possession against the transferees from another co-sharer. In such a case, the
court should mould the relief and can pass a decree for joint possession between the co-sharer
and transferee from another co-sharer but the suit cannot be dismissed for not having claimed a
correct relief.8

When the plaintiff has filed the suit for eviction on the ground that the defendant is a tenant, the
court can grant a decree for eviction against the defendant holding him to be a trespasser though
the plaintiff has failed to prove the tenancy. Even when the plaintiff fails to establish his case, he
will be entitled to get the relief from the court on the basis of the case made out by the defendant
when such relief of the plaintiff is not barred by limitation. 9 In a suit for cancellation of an
agreement to sell, a decree for specific performance in favor of the defendant cannot be granted.
When in a suit filed under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the plaintiff has not
prayed for settlement of the scheme, the court can grant that relief. 10 Even when the plaintiff has
claimed a smaller share but is entitled to a larger share, he can be granted the relief for the larger
share if in order to grant such relief neither valuation nor court-fee requires being changed. 11
However, when the plaintiff sues on the basis of his title, without basing his claim on the
possession, but the question of title is decided against him, he cannot base his claim on
possession.

The clear admission of the defendant in the pleadings confers jurisdiction on the court to award
relief to the plaintiff on a basis different from one claimed by the plaintiff. 12 When the suit is
filed seeking alternative reliefs, it is the duty of the court to find out whether it has got
jurisdiction to try the suit or not, and simply on the basis of the allegations, it cannot throw away
the case, particularly when the alternative relief is within the power of that court so as to grant a

7
Kidar Lall Seal v Hari Lall Seal, AIR 1952 SC 47.
8
Narendra Kumar Jain v Sukumar Chand Jain, AIR 1994 All 1.
9
Shantilal Chandrashankar v Bai Basi, AIR 1976 Guj 1.
10
Ramesh Chandra v Gulab Rai, AIR 1980 All 283.
11
Maqsood Ali v Zahid Ali Sabzposh, AIR 1954 All 385.
12
Srinivas Ram Kumar v Mahabir Prasad, AIR 1951 SC 177.

9
decree.13 Merely because alternative relief is sought for, no discretion rests in the court to grant
either the main relief or alternative relief. The court should first proceed to deal with the grant of
main relief and only if the grant of main relief is not possible, then a finding should be recorded
to that effect and it should then proceed to consider the alternative relief.14

The court can look to subsequent events when the relief claimed originally has (1) by reason of
subsequent change of circumstances became appropriate or (2) where it is necessary to take
notice of the change of circumstances to shorten litigation or (3) to do complete justice between
the parties.15 However, the court can take note of the subsequent events and mould relief
accordingly only in exceptional circumstances. In a suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable
requirement, facts arising subsequent to lease can be considered both by trial court and appeal
court. When, after a decree for ejectment was passed against a tenant under the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), but during the pendency of the appeal in High Court, the West
Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (12 of 1956) was extended to the locality in which the suit
premises was situated, the High Court had to take into consideration this change of law and to
allow the appeal as there was no evidence for ejectment decree being passed against tenant under
section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.16

Order VII, rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 confers power upon the court to mould
relief in a given situation. It is one thing to say that court interprets a provision of a statute and
lays down a law, but it is another thing to say that courts although exercises plenary jurisdiction
will have no discretionary power at all in the matter of molding the relief or otherwise give any
such reliefs as parties may be found to be entitled to in equity and justice. If that be so, the
court’s function as a court of justice would be totally impaired. Discretionary jurisdiction in a
court need not be conferred always by a statute.17Where the earlier suit was only for an
injunction to restrain the defendants from further committing the offending acts, whereas the
present suits were based on the consequences of the illegal acts of the defendants, and the claim
put forward in the earlier suit was entirely different from the claim made in the present suit and
the subject matter and the cause of action were also different, the earlier suit having been

13
Addapalli Venkata Laxmi v Ayinampadi Narasinha Rao, AIR 1994 AP 72.
14
Sheriff Iqbal Hussain Ahmad v Kota Venkata Subbamma, AIR 1994 AP 164.
15
Bedlani v A Hoogewerfe, AIR 1975 Raj 153.
16
Niranjan v Lakshmi Nirayan, AIR 1976 Cal 322.
17
UP State Brassware Corp Ltd v Udai Narain Pandey, AIR 2006 SC 586.

10
withdrawn, the contention that the present suits were hit by O II, rule 2 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 would not be available to the defendants. As such, the maintainability of the
subsequent suit could not be doubted.18

J. PECUNIARY JURISDICTION

A court has jurisdiction only over suits, the amount or value of whose subject matter does not
exceed the pecuniary limits of its ordinary jurisdiction. For instance, a small cause’s court cannot
entertain a suit in which the amount claimed exceeds Rs 1,000. However, some courts have
unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction such as the High Courts and district courts.

“Save in so far as is otherwise expressly provided, nothing herein contained shall operate to
give any Court jurisdiction over suits the amount or value of the subject-matter of which exceeds
the pecuniary limits (if any) of its ordinary jurisdiction.”

1. Otherwise expressly provided- The expression subject matter means not the property
involved in the suit but the relief claimed and it is its value that determines the
jurisdiction.1 The Suits Valuation Act 7 of 1887, prescribes the mode of valuing certain
suits for purposes of determining jurisdiction and the present section.
must be read subject to its provisions. Under s 8 of Suits Valuation Act, 1887 the
valuation for court fees and the valuation for jurisdiction in certain suits is the same.
Under s 7 cl (iv)(f) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, the valuation for purposes of court fees
in a suit for accounts lies in the discretion of the plaintiff. Therefore, in a suit for
accounts, the plaintiffs valuation in the plaint fixes the jurisdiction of the court.2 In a suit
for unsettled accounts, fixed court fee is payable and for jurisdictional purposes, such a
suit can be valued in terms of valuation as fixed by the plaintiff.3 In a suit for partition,
the value for the purpose of jurisdiction is the value of the share claimed by the plaintiff
and not the value of the entire estate in which the partition is sought.4 In a suit for
recovery of property from the tenant whose tenancy has been terminated, the valuation of
suit for jurisdictional purposes should be on the basis of annual rent or profit. Suit so
valued along with the claim of damage exceeding pecuniary jurisdiction of the court is
liable to be returned for prosecution before the proper court.19
18
Secretary, KSEB v MV Abraham, AIR 2007 Ker 12.
19
Food Controller v. Cork, AIR 1923 Cal 647.

11
 2. Pecuniary limits of jurisdiction- Pecuniary jurisdiction of a court-suit valued less than
Rs 50,000 is to be instituted before the court of the lowest grade competent to try, that is,
additional district judge. The subsequent amendment increasing pecuniary jurisdiction of
civil judge (class I) from Rs 20,000 to Rs 50,000. It cannot be said that the additional
district judge who discharges powers of District Court are not varied and pecuniary
jurisdiction of the district judge was not registered.6 The exercise of option by a plaintiff
to value his claim for the purpose of court-fees, determines the value for the purpose of
pecuniary jurisdiction.20 A subsequent increase in the value of the property takes away
the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court.21
3. Court may pass a decree in excess of its pecuniary jurisdiction- Section 6 refers to
the courts power to entertain a suit. It is the plaintiffs valuation in his plaint which prima
facie determines the jurisdiction of the court and not the amount which may be found or
decreed by the court.22 If the plaintiffs valuation in his plaint in a suit for accounts is
within the pecuniary limits of the courts jurisdiction, the court may pass a decree for the
sum in excess of the pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction. The court has no jurisdiction to
grant reliefs not claimed in the plaint if by reason of their inclusion, the suit would be
beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. 23 Where different suits which are severally
within the jurisdiction of the court are consolidated for hearing, the court does not lose its
jurisdiction to hear it by reason of the value of all the suits exceeding its jurisdiction if
taken together.24 The Bombay High Court has held that in a case of damages, the amount
of damage which the Court can award is limited to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the
Court.25
4. Mesne profits after suit do not affect pecuniary jurisdiction- The value of a suit for
the recovery of possession and mesne profits is the value of the immovable property plus
mesne profits up to the date of the suit. Mesne profits after suit do not form part of the
cause of act ion even though there be a prayer in the plaint for mesne profits after suit. If
the suit is properly brought in the court of a munsiff for the recovery of possession of

20
R v. Burt, ex p Preburg, (1960) 1 QB 625.
21
Kapildeo Prasad v. Ramanand Prasad, AIR 2007 Pat 1: 2007 (2) AIR Jhar R 231.
22
Padmasundara Rao v. State of T.N., AIR 2002 SC 1334 [LNIND 2002 SC 201], p. 1340.
23
SALMOND : Jurisprudence, 11th Ed., p. 152.
24
District Mining Officer v. Tata Iron and Steel Co., AIR 2001 SC 3134.
25
Justice G.P. Singh: Principles of Statutory Interpretation, (Twelfth Ed., 2010), p. 3.

12
 land and mesne profits prior to the date of the suit, and there is also a prayer for mesne
profits from the date of the institution of the suit, which are claimed or assessed at a sum
beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the munsiff, the munsiff has jurisdiction to fix the
mesne profits from and after the date of the institution of the suit and to pass a decree
therefore although the amount may be beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction.26

K. JURISDICTION TO GRANT INTERIM RELIEF

Jurisdiction to grant Interim relief is in the aid of and ancillary to the main relief available to
a party at the conclusion of a suit or other proceedings. 27 The object of granting interim relief
is to evolve a workable formula keeping in mind the pros and cons of the matter by striking a
delicate balance between the interest of the plaintiff if interim relief is refused and interest of
the defendant if it is granted.28 The power to grant interim relief is in the discretion of the
court and is inherent in every court of competent jurisdiction. Thus, where an income tax
appellate tribunal refused to grant a stay during the pendency of appeal on the ground that it
had no such power; the order was set aside on the ground that an express grant of statutory
power carries with it by necessary implication the authority to use all reasonable means to
make that grant effective. A court at the time of passing the final order is bound to consider
the interim orders passed earlier and if it holds that no interim relief ought to have been
granted it must restore the status quo ante and undo the injustice caused to the opposite party.
However, interim orders passed by courts on certain considerations are not precedents for
other cases based on similar facts.29

L. CASE ANALYSIS

Hiralal v. Kalinath, AIR 1962 SC 199

Issue- What is the difference between complete lack of jurisdiction and lack of jurisdiction
due to the insufficient relief.

26
Corrocraft Ltd. v. Pan American Airways, (1968) 3 WLR 714, p. 732.
27
Union of India v Paras Laminates (Pvt) Ltd, AIR 1991 SC 696.
28
Shiv Kumar Chadha v Municipal Corpn of Delhi (1993) 3 SCC 161.
29
Empire Industries Ltd v Union of India AIR 1986 SC 662.

13
Held- It should be noted that there is a difference between inherent lack of jurisdiction which
goes to the root of jurisdiction or competence of a party to try a case and a mere lack of
territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction. An objection regarding lack of territorial or pecuniary
jurisdiction is merely technical and does not go to the root of the jurisdiction of the Court to
try a case. It is well settled that such objections can be waived by a party and are capable of
being cured by acquiescence, order of the Court or in other respects as provided by law. A
party subsequently is precluded from taking them, though consent and waiver cannot cure
inherent lack of jurisdiction.

Church of South India Association v Telugu Church Council, AIR 1996 SC 987

Issue- Whether a suit will be treated as res judicata if the court has the pecuniary
jurisdiction?

Held- The judgment in a former suit would operate as res judicata if the court which decides
the said suit was competent to try the same by virtue of its pecuniary jurisdiction and the
subject matter to try the subsequent suit and it is not necessary that the said court should have
had territorial jurisdiction to decide the subsequent suit.

Prabhakar Vishnu v UOI, AIR 1970 Bom 285

Issue- Whether an objection on the ground of want of pecuniary jurisdiction can be

Unless there has been a consequent failure of justice, no objection on the ground of want of
territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction can be entertained either in appellate court or in revision
court. When a party suffers from no prejudice by reasons of the fact that the suit has been
tried at a wrong place, decision of the trial court that it had jurisdiction to try the suit cannot
be assailed in appellate court.

14
G Loganathan v S Chenniaya Chettiar, AIR 1996 Mad 224

Issue- At what stage an objection as to the pecuniary jurisdiction can be raised?

Held- Objection as to pecuniary jurisdiction was raised in the trial court as well as in the
appellate court. It was held that even if this objection was raised at the earliest opportunity in
the trial court, unless it is shown in the appellate court that on account of trial by the wrong
court, there has been a failure of justice, the appellate court cannot interfere in the findings of
the trial court on the ground of jurisdiction of the court.

Srinivas Ram Kumar v Mahabir Prasad, AIR 1951 SC 177

The clear admission of the defendant in the pleadings confers jurisdiction on the court to
award relief to the plaintiff on a basis different from one claimed by the plaintiff. When the
suit is filed seeking alternative reliefs, it is the duty of the court to find out whether it has got
jurisdiction to try the suit or not, and simply on the basis of the allegations, it cannot throw
away the case, particularly when the alternative relief is within the power of that court so as
to grant a decree. Merely because alternative relief is sought for, no discretion rests in the
court to grant either the main relief or alternative relief. The court should first proceed to deal
with the grant of main relief and only if the grant of main relief is not possible, then a finding
should be recorded to that effect and it should then proceed to consider the alternative relief.

UP State Brassware Corp Ltd v Udai Narain Pandey, AIR 2006 SC 586

Issue- Whether a court has the discretionary power while exercising pecuniary
jurisdiction?

Order VII, rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 confers power upon the court to
mould relief in a given situation. It is one thing to say that court interprets a provision of a
statute and lays down a law, but it is another thing to say that courts although exercises
plenary jurisdiction will have no discretionary power at all in the matter of moulding the
relief or otherwise give any such reliefs as parties may be found to be entitled to in equity

15
and justice. If that be so, the court’s function as a court of justice would be totally impaired.
Discretionary jurisdiction in a court need not be conferred always by a statute.

M. REFERENCES

1. Lakshibai v Madhankar Vinayak Kulkarni, AIR 1968 Mys 82 : (1967) 1 Mys LJ 27.
2. Shiv Kumar Chadha v Municipal Corpn of Delhi (1993) 3 SCC 161.
3. Empire Industries Ltd v Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 662.
4. Raza Textiles Ltd, Rampur v Income-Tax Officer, Rampur, AIR 1973 SC 1362
5. Kiran Singh v Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340
6. Ujjam Bai v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1621
7. Kidar Lall Seal v Hari Lall Seal, AIR 1952 SC 47.
8. Narendra Kumar Jain v Sukumar Chand Jain, AIR 1994 All 1.
9. Shantilal Chandrashankar v Bai Basi, AIR 1976 Guj 1.
10. Ramesh Chandra v Gulab Rai, AIR 1980 All 283.
11. Maqsood Ali v Zahid Ali Sabzposh, AIR 1954 All 385.
12. Srinivas Ram Kumar v Mahabir Prasad, AIR 1951 SC 177.
13. Addapalli Venkata Laxmi v Ayinampadi Narasinha Rao, AIR 1994 AP 72.
14. Sheriff Iqbal Hussain Ahmad v Kota Venkata Subbamma, AIR 1994 AP 164.
15. Bedlani v A Hoogewerfe, AIR 1975 Raj 153.
16. Niranjan v Lakshmi Nirayan, AIR 1976 Cal 322.
17. UP State Brassware Corp Ltd v Udai Narain Pandey, AIR 2006 SC 586.
18. Secretary, KSEB v MV Abraham, AIR 2007 Ker 12.
19. Food Controller v. Cork, AIR 1923 Cal 647.
20. R v. Burt, ex p Preburg, (1960) 1 QB 625.
21. Kapildeo Prasad v. Ramanand Prasad, AIR 2007 Pat 1: 2007 (2) AIR Jhar R 231.
22. Padmasundara Rao v. State of T.N., AIR 2002 SC 1334 [LNIND 2002 SC 201], p. 1340.
23. SALMOND : Jurisprudence, 11th Ed., p. 152.
24. District Mining Officer v. Tata Iron and Steel Co., AIR 2001 SC 3134.
25. Justice G.P. Singh: Principles of Statutory Interpretation, (Twelfth Ed., 2010), p. 3.
26. Corrocraft Ltd. v. Pan American Airways, (1968) 3 WLR 714, p. 732.

16
27. Union of India v Paras Laminates (Pvt) Ltd, AIR 1991 SC 696.
28. Shiv Kumar Chadha v Municipal Corpn of Delhi (1993) 3 SCC 161.
29. Empire Industries Ltd v Union of India AIR 1986 SC 662.

17