DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,

LUCKNOW

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE-I

TOPIC-PLACE OF SUING AND INSTITUTION OF SUIT

SUBMITTED TO- Dr. VIPUL VINOD

SUBMITTED BY- SACHIN YADAV
ENROLLMENT NUMBER- 220101127
SECTION-B
SEMESTER-4TH
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to take this opportunity to extend a word of my gratitude to

esteemed ‘Civil Procedure Code’ teacher Dr. VIPUL VINOD who has
been a constant source of inspiration for me in the pursuance of this
project. He has been gracious enough to guide me on the right path
which has enabled me to strengthen my efforts pertaining to the
comprehensive research and efforts put into the making of this project. I
would also wish the reader of my project a knowledgeable experience.
The project has been researched meticulously and has been materialized
whilst making sure that the utmost level of care and finesse is
undertaken so as to see that the information mentioned is concurrent
with the highest benchmarks of accuracy, precision, and perfection.
 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this project report submitted by me to Dr.

Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow in
partial fulfillment of requirement for the award of degree of
BALLB(Hons) is a record of bona fide project Work carried out
by me under the guidance of professor Dr VIPUL VINOD. I
further declare that the project reported in this project has not
been submitted and will not be submitted either in part or in full
for the award of any degree or diploma in this Institute or any
other Institute or any University.

SACHIN YADAV
220101127

CONTENTS
1.Introduction
2.Pecuniary jurisdiction
-Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan (1954)
-Tara Devi v. Sri Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj (1987)
3.Territorial jurisdiction
4.Subject-matter jurisdiction
5.Objection to jurisdiction: Section 21 of CPC, 1908
6.The objection as to territorial jurisdiction
7.The objection as to pecuniary jurisdiction
8.The objection as to subject-matter jurisdiction
9. What is a Suit?
10. Meaning of Institution of Suit
11. How Institution of Suit under CPC is Done?
11.1. Plaint
11.2. Appropriate Place of Suing
11.3. Presentation of Plaint
12. Scope and Applicability of Section 26
13. Formalities After the Institution of Suit under CPC
14. Conclusion

INTRODUCTION
The phrase "place of suing" designates the trial's location. The court's competence
is unaffected by the same. According to Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, the plaintiff must file a lawsuit in the lowest grade court that is qualified to
hear it. Sections 16 through 18 of the aforementioned Code provide provisions
regarding immovable property. Suits seeking damages for wrongs done to people
or moveable property are particularly covered by Section 19. The well-established
rule that flaws pertaining to territorial or financial jurisdiction may be waived is
acknowledged in Section 21 of the Code. Section 21-A of the Code specifically
prohibits substantive litigation to set aside a court judgement on the grounds of
lack of territorial jurisdiction.

Pecuniary jurisdiction
According to Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a lawsuit must be
filed in the lowest grade court that has the authority to hear it. Since this regulation
is procedural in nature, it has no bearing on the courts' jurisdiction. Therefore, a
decision issued by a higher court cannot be said to have been issued without
jurisdiction, as the Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench noted in the case of Gopal
v. Shamrao (1941). The following outlines the dual purpose of Section 15:
Lessen the workload for the higher courts:
1.Provide convenience for the parties and any witnesses who might be asked to
testify in these cases.
2.The plaintiff's value to the plaint, not the amount for which the court would
ultimately give a judgement, determines a court's jurisdiction under Section 15.

Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan (1954)

In resolving Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan (1954), a bench of Justices Aiyyar
and T.L. Venkatarama considered Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887.
Sections 21 and 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and Section 11 of the
Suits Valuation Act, 1887 are predicated on the idea that, absent a breakdown in
justice, a case should not be reversible on technical grounds after it has been tried
on its merits and a judgement has been rendered.
Until there has been prejudice on the merits, the Legislature has treated
jurisdictional disputes pertaining to territory and money as technical problems that
should not be reviewed by an appeal court. The answer to the question of whether
prejudice existed must be determined by the particulars of each case. Section 11
jurisdiction is an equitable one to be used when a subordinate court wrongly takes
jurisdiction due to overvaluation or undervaluation and a resulting failure of
justice. Determining the exact definition of such authority or confining it to certain
limits is neither desirable nor practical.
A party who has resorted to a forum of his own choosing and judgement cannot be
heard to complain of any discrimination, according to the Apex Court. The
determination of the learned Judges that there were no grounds for intervention
under Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, in this matter was deemed as
right, holding that the appeal heard by the District Court in this particular case was
fair and warranted.

Tara Devi v. Sri Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj (1987)

The defendant in Tara Devi v. Sri Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj (1987) filed a
preliminary objection in writing, alleging that the plaintiff had diminished the
complaint and casting doubt on the court's jurisdiction to hear the matter. The Trial
Court found that the Plaintiff had accurately valued the lessee's leasehold interest
and that the action was governed by Section 7(IV)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870.
The Trial Court had noted that the Plaintiff was entitled to assign his own value to
the requested remedy. It was concluded that the plaintiff had fairly valued the claim
and that the necessary court fee had been paid because the valuation was neither
arbitrary nor unreasonable.
When deciding on a case, the Supreme Court of India upheld the Trial Court's
ruling and noted that, in cases where objective criteria for valuation exist,
assigning a value to the relief while disregarding those criteria may be clearly
arbitrary and irrational, and the Court will have good reason to intervene.

Territorial jurisdiction
In order to discuss territorial jurisdiction of a court, the four types of suits that are
to be considered are:
1.Suits in respect of the immovable property (Sections 16-18);
2.Suits in respect of the movable property (Section 19);
3.Suits in respect of compensation for wrongs (Section 19);
4.Other suits (Section 20).
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 17, allows proceedings pertaining to
real estate situated under the jurisdiction of several courts. As long as the litigation
is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of those courts, it is permissible to file it in
various municipal boundaries whose jurisdiction includes any section of the
property. Furthermore, if the local boundaries of a court's jurisdiction are unclear,
Section 18 of the Code specifies the venue for the suit's institution.

Subject-matter jurisdiction
Topic-matter the term "jurisdiction" refers to the court's power or ability to make
decisions about issues depending on their specifics. Various courts have been
granted the power to rule on different types of litigation, considering the variety of
circumstances. Courts of civil judges of the junior division cannot decide cases
concerning insolvency, probate, divorce, and other similar problems. The court's
decision or judgement is invalid if it lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of
the action. The following are the five types of lawsuits in which Section 16 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be used:
1.Partition of immovable property
2.Recovery of immovable property
3.Torts to immovable property
4.Determination of any right or interest in the property
Sale, Foreclosure, Redemption with respect to mortgage or charge upon the
immovable property
At the 2005 case of Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd., the Supreme
Court held that an action under Section 16 of the CPC, 1908 may be brought at the
location of the immovable property, which in this case was Gurgaon, Haryana. The
Delhi High Court is thus without jurisdiction to consider the matter. In certain
situations, it makes no difference where the cause of action originated or where
either party resides.

Objection to jurisdiction: Section 21 of CPC, 1908

Protecting honorable litigants and preventing harassment of plaintiffs who have
filed lawsuits in good faith before a court that is subsequently found to lack
jurisdiction are the goals of Section 21. Honest litigants are not permitted to use
this provision.
The objection as to territorial jurisdiction
The Supreme Court of India considered a lawsuit brought by the Respondent
against the Appellant to recover his commission related to some share transactions
in Agra while rendering its decision in the 1962 case of Seth Hiralal Patni v. Sri
Kali Nath. After approval under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent was obtained by
the Bombay High Court, the plaint was filed. As mentioned in his written
statement, one of the appellant's defenses was that the complaint was brought
outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court Original Side since
the whole cause of action, if any, originated in Agra.
Arbitration was finally requested in this lawsuit. The High Court upheld the
arbitrator's award in favor of the Respondent when it was appealed. The Appellant
objected to the Respondent's further filing of an execution proceeding, arguing that
the Bombay High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the suit and issue a court decree
because the cause of action never originated within the court's territorial
jurisdiction and that any further proceedings were entirely without jurisdiction.
The Apex Court ruled that a party to a lawsuit is deemed to have waived their
written declaration objecting to the court's territorial jurisdiction when they consent
to have the case arbitrated through the legal system. It continued by stating that the
High Court proceedings, not the execution processes, are where the legitimacy of
the procedure, the decision granting authorization under Clause 12 of the Letters
Patent, or the waiver of any objection, should be brought up. Only in cases where
the court that issued the decree lacks inherent jurisdiction over the parties or the
subject matter of the litigation may the validity of the decree be disputed in the
execution procedures. As a result, it was decided that Section 21 of the Code of
1908 covered the objection about such jurisdiction.

The objection as to pecuniary jurisdiction

For an objection as to pecuniary jurisdiction to be raised, the three conditions
provided hereunder must be satisfied:
1.The objection was taken by the court of first instance.
2.There has been a consequent failure of justice.
3.The case was taken up at the earliest possible opportunity.
In this regard, the case of Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan (1954) can be referred
to.

The objection as to subject-matter jurisdiction

The Calcutta High Court made the following observation in the case of Hriday
Nath Roy v. Ram Chandra Barna Sarma (1920): a court's subject-matter
jurisdiction is viewed as a condition precedent or sine qua non to the acquisition of
authority over the parties and the case, and any judgement, order, or decree issued
by the court is void if the court lacks jurisdiction.

Institution of Suit under CPC

A fundamental component of the Indian legal system, the establishment of suit
under the CPC signifies the official start of a civil lawsuit. Through this procedure,
parties can resolve conflicts in court in an organized and systematic way.
The submission of a "plaint" by the plaintiff, which includes the case's facts, the
legal foundation for their claim, and the remedy they are requesting, is the
fundamental step in the establishment of a lawsuit. To make sure that the
appropriate court hears the case and that the required expenses are paid,
jurisdiction and court fees are important factors to consider.
Following the filing of the lawsuit, the legal process culminates in the court's
ruling or decree. In India's legal system, filing a lawsuit under the CPC is an
essential first step in achieving justice and resolving civil disputes.

What is a Suit?
The CPC, 1908 does not define "suit" in any particular way. A "suit" is a general
term that refers to any legal action in which an individual or group of individuals
files a lawsuit against another in a court to seek a remedy granted by the law for
redressing a wrong or asserting a right, whether it be in equity or law, according to
Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition.
A "suit" is an official legal procedure that starts with the filing of a complaint to
uphold one's substantive or civil rights against the state or a person. Following the
conclusion of a "suit," a court ruling, or decree is issued. There can be no such
ruling in the absence of a "suit."
The Supreme Court clarified in the 2011 decision of Ethiopian Airlines v. Ganesh
Narain Saboo that a "suit" is a general word that includes any action performed by
an individual to assert a right provided by the law.
The Privy Council held in the landmark 1932 decision of Hansraj Gupta & Others
v. Dehra Dun-Mussoorie Electric Tramway Co. Ltd. that the filing of a complaint
initiates a civil legal action.

Meaning of Institution of Suit

According to the CPC, "institution of suit" means that a plaintiff officially files a
civil suit in a court of law against a defendant. The filing of a lawsuit starts the
legal process in which the plaintiff requests a remedy for a specific problem or
disagreement, such as a judgement, order, or decree.
The essential elements of a CPC institution of suit usually consist of:
Filing a Plaint: The plaintiff starts the process by filing a written statement known
as a “plaint” in the appropriate court. The plaint outlines the facts of the case, the
legal basis for the claim and the relief or remedy sought.
Court Selection: The plaintiff must choose the correct court with jurisdiction to
hear the case, meaning that the court has the legal authority to handle the specific
type of dispute and is located within the appropriate geographic area.
Payment of Court Fees: The plaintiff is generally required to pay the prescribed
court fees, which may vary depending on the nature and value of the suit, as per
the Court Fees Act, 1870.
Service of Summons: After the institution of the suit under CPC the court issues a
summons to notify the defendant of the legal action and requires their appearance
in court to respond to the plaintiff’s claims.
Proceedings: Once the defendant receives the summons and responds, the legal
proceedings unfold, including the presentation of evidence, legal arguments and
ultimately the court’s judgment or decree.
In conclusion, the formal start of a civil lawsuit under the CPC signifies the
commencement of the legal procedure to address and settle a particular
disagreement between parties in a court of law. This is known as the establishment
of suits.
How is Institution of Suit under CPC Done?
The procedures for starting legal action are outlined in Section 26 and Order IV.
According to Section 26, each civil suit must start with the submission of a written
declaration (referred to as a plaint) to the court or an authorized officer in duplicate
or in accordance with the guidelines outlined in the Code of Civil Procedure. An
affidavit is required to substantiate the facts stated in the plaint. We need also
consider Orders IV, VI, and VII of the first schedule in order to comprehend this
better. To further elaborate on the legal conditions described in Section 26, Rule 1
of Order IV should be examined in conjunction with the section. According to this
regulation, a civil lawsuit is only deemed to have begun when a copy of the plaint
is presented to the designated officer.
In addition, the aforementioned plaint needs to follow the guidelines provided in
Orders VI and VII.
According to Section 80 of the CPC, a legal notice must be sent before a civil suit
can be filed in situations where the defendant is the government or a public
official. It's crucial to remember, too, that not all civil lawsuits need for this kind of
notification. Before filing a civil lawsuit, attorneys may occasionally send legal
notifications to the defendant as a last-ditch attempt to settle the disagreement.
Usually, this is done as a safety precaution.
The following are the steps in the CPC procedure for instituting a suit:
1.Drafting a plaint (a formal written statement outlining the case)
2.Selecting the appropriate court for filing the civil suit (the place of suing)
3.Presenting the plaint to the court or a designated officer.

PLAINT
A plaint is the first step in the CPC lawsuit establishment process. A "plaint" is a
formal document filed in court by a plaintiff requesting damages from the
defendant for any injuries they may have caused. Order VII, Rule 1 of the CPC
specifies the substance of a plaint, although there is no set structure for writing
one. The following details have to be included in a plaint:
*The name of the court where the civil suit is filed.
*The name, description, and address of the defendant, to the extent known.
*If the plaintiff or defendant is a minor or a person of unsound mind, a statement to
that effect is needed.
*The facts that give rise to the legal claim and when they occurred.
*The facts that establish the court’s jurisdiction.
*The type of relief or compensation the plaintiff is seeking.
*If the plaintiff has accepted a set-off or waived part of their claim, the amount
they’ve allowed or waived.
*A statement of the value of the subject matter of the civil suit for determining
jurisdiction and court costs, to the extent applicable.
The Delhi High Court held in the matter of Kavita Tushir v. Pushpraj Dalal
(2022) that a plaint could not be dismissed in part; it had to be accepted or rejected
in full. This implies that a plaint needs to be evaluated holistically, and in the event
that it is deemed inadequate or problematic, it ought to be dismissed whole rather
than partially.

According to Order VII, Rule 11, grounds for dismissing a plaint include:
*When there is no valid cause of action presented.
*If the relief sought is undervalued and the plaintiff fails to update the valuation as
directed by the court within a specified period.
*When the relief sought is correctly valued, but the plaint is not sufficiently
stamped, and the plaintiff is instructed by the court to provide the necessary stamp
paper within a given deadline but fails to do so.
*If the statements in the plaint indicate that the civil suit is prohibited by any law.
*When the plaint is not filed in duplicate.
*If the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9.

Appropriate Place of Suing

Sections 15 to 20 of the CPC address the location or place where institution of a
suit under CPC can be done.
Section 15 specifies that the plaintiff should file their civil suit in a court with the
lowest level of competence.
According to Section 16, lawsuits must be filed in the local jurisdiction where the
subject property is located in the following situations:
1.Recovery of immovable property (with or without rent or profits).
2.Partition of immovable property.
3.Foreclosure, sale or redemption of a mortgage or charge on immovable
property.
4.Determination of any other right or interest in immovable property.
5.Compensation for damage to immovable property.
6.Recovery of movable property under distraint or attachment.
A lawsuit may be filed in a court within the local jurisdiction where the property is
located, or where the defendant resides, conducts business, or makes their living, if
it is intended to obtain relief or compensation for a wrongful act to immovable
property and can be effectively obtained by the defendant's presence. The
foundation for this is the idea that "equity acts in personam," which states that
equity pertains to people rather than things.
The jurisdiction of cases involving immovable property situated in several court
jurisdictions is covered in Section 17.
As long as the cause of action for both properties is the same, a suit for immovable
properties located in different jurisdictions may be brought in any court within the
local jurisdiction where any component of the property is located.
The Supreme Court made it clear that several properties can be referred to as
"property" under Section 17 of the CPC in the 2019 case of Shivnarayan v.
Maniklal. If the cause of action is the same, suits pertaining to several properties
may be filed in any court that has jurisdiction over them. The site for filing a civil
lawsuit in cases where the court's jurisdiction is unclear is covered under Section
18. Any of the courts concerned can hear a case involving immovable property
when it's unclear which court should handle it.
The court's decision will be regarded as legitimate as if the property fell under its
local jurisdiction if it acknowledges this ambiguity and moves forward with the
case. Nonetheless, considering the circumstances and importance of the case, the
court in question ought to remain competent.
An objection that the original court lacked jurisdiction over the location of the
property will only be entertained if there was an injustice and there was no
reasonable doubt about the jurisdiction at the time the suit was initiated, as long as
a statement under Section 18(1) is not made.
Suits for damages to a person or moveable property are covered under Section 19.
In these situations, the plaintiff has the option to bring the lawsuit in the
jurisdiction where the property is located, the defendant resides, conducts business,
or makes a living.

Section 20 provides a fundamental framework for deciding where to file a civil

lawsuit. It deals with the filing of lawsuits in cases where the defendant lives,
works, owns a company, or when the cause of action originates entirely or partially
within the court's jurisdiction. If there are more than one defendant at the
beginning of the lawsuit, it can be filed in any court where any of the defendants
resides, works, or is employed, as long as the plaintiff has the court's approval. In
the event that the defendants accept the selected site, there is no PERMISSION
REQUIRED FROM THE COURT.

PRESENTATION OF A PLAINT
The steps for accepting a plaint for the purpose of instituting a lawsuit under the
CPC are described in Order VII Rule 9. In line with this regulation:

1.The defendants will get summons from the court in accordance with Order V,
Rule 9 guidelines.
2.In addition to paying the requisite cost for serving these summonses on the
defendants, the plaintiff must deliver as many copies of the plaint as there are
defendants, and they must do so within seven days of the court's order.
3.It is imperative for the plaintiff to indicate the specific role in which the
defendant or defendants are being sued, particularly if they are representing others.
4.The plaintiff may ask for permission to change these statements if necessary to
make sure they comply with the plaint's contents.
Scope and Applicability of Section 26
The burden of presenting evidence in a civil litigation is with the plaintiff. The
plaintiff must provide evidence that the defendant is legally liable for any damages
claimed and that the accusations made against him are factual. The plaintiff's plaint
must contain all relevant information and supporting evidence in order to start a
civil lawsuit.
The plaint should also be filed with the required court costs, which usually amount
to a modest percentage of the overall action or claim value. Depending on the type
of litigation being brought, the Court Fees Act, 1870 and the Stamp Act, 1899
provide the precise court fees and stamp duty amounts. Section 9 of the CPC deals
with court jurisdiction to hear all civil suits, with exceptions only when the law
explicitly or implicitly prohibits it.

Formalities After the Institution of Suit under CPC

Order IV, Rules 1 and 2 provide specifics on how an action under the CPC may be
instituted before a court or one of its appointed officers.
The issue of a summons to the defendant or defendants is covered under Section
27. Within thirty days of the suit's filing, a summons is sent to the defendant,
requesting that they reply to the claim. The summons is served in accordance with
the prescribed protocol.
Serving summonses to defendants who live in different states is covered under
Section 28. If the defendant lives in another state, the summons needs to be sent to
that state's court according to its regulations.
If the summons sent to another state is in a language different from the court’s
official language, a translation of the record is required:
*If the court issued the summons in Hindi, the translation must also be in Hindi.
*If the record is in a language other than Hindi or English, the translation must be
provided in Hindi or English and delivered with the record.
Section 29 addresses the service of foreign summons. Summons and other legal
documents can be presented by:
1.Any Civil or Revenue Court established in India, even if the CPC doesn’t apply.
2.Any Civil or Revenue Court established or maintained by the Central
Government outside of India.
3.Any other Civil or Revenue Court outside of India to which the Central
Government has extended the application of these provisions through an official
notification in the Gazette. These documents can be delivered to courts within the
areas covered by this Code and served as if they were issued by those local courts.
Section 31 extends the principles of Sections 27, 28 and 29 to cover witness
summonses. This means that the procedures for issuing and serving summonses for
producing documents, materials or providing testimony are governed by these
sections.

CONCLUSION
In the 1968 case of Official Trustee v. Sachindra Nath, the Supreme Court ruled
that jurisdiction requires not only the ability to hear, but also the power to hear,
decide, and act regarding the particular disagreement that has arisen between the
parties. A competent court is one that possesses jurisdiction; jurisdiction is defined
in detail in each nation's legal system and is essential to the effective handling and
administration of litigation, whether directly or indirectly. In a nutshell, jurisdiction
is the authority, power, and competency of a court to deal with the things that are
brought before it, and the presence of jurisdiction is a prerequisite for exercising
jurisdiction, otherwise, a court’s ruling would be considered null and void.
The official start of a civil lawsuit in a court of law is known as the establishment
of suit under the CPC. It entails the plaintiff filing a plaint outlining the details of
the claim, its legal foundation, and the relief that is being sought. Crucial actions in
the procedure include selecting the relevant court with jurisdiction, paying the
necessary court costs, and issuing the defendant with a summons.

The legal process, which includes the presenting of facts and legal arguments,
begins once the action is filed in CPC. In the end, the matter is settled by a
judgement or decree from the court. A crucial first step in using the legal system to
resolve civil disputes and seek remedies is the establishment of suits.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. https://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/2212/
Institution-of-Suit-and-its-Essentials.html
2. https://legalvidhiya.com/institution-of-suit-under-
cpc1908/
3. https://lddashboard.legislative.gov.in/sites/default/
files/A1908-05_0.pdf
4. https://legalraj.com/articles-details/institution-of-suit
5. https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/allahabad-high-
court/allahabad-high-court-commercial-courts-act-
section-12a-urgent-interim-relief-pre-institution-
mediation-232334
6. https://legalvidhiya.com/institution-of-suit-under-
cpc1908/
7. https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=authority
%20to%20institute%20a%20suit