Jurisdiction and place of suing under the CPC :

(A Study of Sections 15 to 20)

Introduction

▪ Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Court, 1908 (CPC) provides that the Courts shall
have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature except suits of which cognizance is
expressly or impliedly barred.

▪ There are three types of jurisdictions: subject matter, territorial and pecuniary
jurisdiction.

▪ Section 16- 20 of CPC deals with territorial jurisdiction

Territorial Jurisdiction

For the purpose of territorial jurisdiction suits may be divided into following
categories:

o Suits in respect of immovable property (Section 16- Section 18)

o Suits in respect of movable property (Section 19)

o Suits for compensation for wrong (Section 19)

o Other suits (Section 20)

Suits in Respect of Immovable Property

Section 16 of CPC

▪ Section 16 of CPC provides that the suit is to be instituted where subject matter is situated.
This Section applies to following types of suits:

o For the recovery of immovable property with or without rent or profits.

o For the partition of immovable property.

o For foreclosure, sale or redemption in the case of a mortgage of or charge

o For the determination of any other right to or interest in immovable

o For compensation for wrong to immovable property.

▪ Proviso to Section 16 provides for a situation where suit can be instituted in the
following places:

o Within the local limits of which property is situated

o Where the defendant

• Actually, and voluntarily resides

• Or carries on business

• Or personally works for gain

▪ Proviso applies to when the suit is for

o Relief respecting immovable property or for compensation for wrong to

o Immovable property is held by or on behalf of the defendant

o The relief sought can be obtained entirely through his personal obedience

▪ Further, Explanation to Section 16 provides that ‘property’ would mean property

▪ Section 17 of CPC

▪ Section 17 provides for suits for immovable property when the property is situated
within the jurisdiction of different Courts.

▪ This Section provides that when the immovable property is situated within the
jurisdiction of different Courts, suit may be instituted in Court within the local limits
of which any portion of the property is situated.

▪ The proviso to this Section provides that in respect of the value of the subject
matter the entire claim should be cognizable by the Court. This means that the
Court should have pecuniary jurisdiction over the matter.

▪ Section 18 of CPC

▪ Section 18 provides for those cases where the local limits of jurisdiction of the
Courts are uncertain.

▪ Section 18(1) provides that:

▪ Where it is alleged to be uncertain within the local limits of the jurisdiction of which
of two or more Courts, any immovable property is situated

▪ any one of those Courts may

▪ record a statement to that effect

▪ And proceed to entertain and dispose of any suit relating to that property

▪ And the decree shall have the same effect as if the property were situated within
the local jurisdiction of that Court

▪ Proviso to this Sub section provides that Court should be competent with regard to
the nature and value of the suit to exercise the jurisdiction.

▪ Section 18(2) provides for the consequence when the statement under Sub section
(1) has not been recorded and an objection regarding the jurisdiction is taken
before the Appellate or Revisional Court.

▪ The Appellate or Revisional Court shall not allow the objection unless in its opinion

▪ There was no reasonable ground for uncertainty at the time of institution of suit

▪ There has been a consequent failure of justice

▪ Suits in Respect of Movable Property or Compensation for Wrong to Persons

▪ Section 19 of CPC provides for jurisdiction for suits for compensation for wrongs to
person or movables.

▪ The suit can be instituted in either of the following Courts:

▪ Where the defendant

▪ Resides or

▪ Carries on business or

▪ Personally, works for gain

▪ Where the wrong done to person or movable property

In the case of Harshad Chiman Lal v. DLF Universal Ltd. (2005), it was held that Section 20
of the CPC leaves no room for doubt that it is a residuary provision and covers those
provisions not falling under Section 15 to Section 19 of CPC.
▪ Section 20 lays down that subject to the limitations aforesaid every suit shall be
instituted within the local limits of whose jurisdiction
o the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one,
at the time of the commencement of the suit,
• actually and voluntarily resides, or
• carries on business, or
• personally works for gain, OR
o any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the
commencement of the suit,
• actually and voluntarily resides, or
 • carries on business, or
• personally works for gain,
• Provided that in such case either the
▪ leave of the Court is given, or
▪ the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally
works for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution
o The cause of action wholly or in part arises
▪ Explanation to this Section lays down the rule about Corporation. It provides that:
o A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole
or principal office in India, or
o in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a
subordinate office, at such place.
Set off and Counter Claim:
Its significance and Impact on the Plaintiff's claim.

Introduction
▪ A plaintiff initiates the process of a civil suit by instituting a plaint in civil court
bearing the jurisdiction to entertain that suit.
▪ Moreover, to continue the case and table his side of the story, the defendant
must submit a written statement.
▪ In certain circumstances, the written statement includes a set-
off and counterclaim.
▪ If the defendant has a counterclaim or wants to set off, he must incorporate in the
written statement as crossclaims.
▪ Furthermore, the limitation period to submit a written statement including set-off
or counterclaim is 30 days from the filing of the plaint.
Set-off
▪ When the plaint includes the issue of recovery of debts, set-off can be
incorporated into the written statement.
▪ Set-off is not defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), its gist is borrowed
from interpretation in judicial precedents.
o In the case of recovery of debts if defendant has a reciprocal claim, he can
claim through the process of set-off.
Illustration:
A filed a suit against B claiming that he had taken Rs. 50,000 from him and the amount
has become due. Now, B has also claimed that A has taken Rs. 20,000 from B and the
amount is due as a debt. In such a scenario, both parties are mutually indebted to each
other, and they both have to pay off the debts due to each other. Instead of filing a fresh
suit altogether, B files a set-off claim along with the written statement in response to the
plaint filed by A for those Rs. 20,000 due.
History of Set-off
▪ The principle of set-off as a crossclaim by the defendant is borrowed from
the doctrine of compensation.
▪ Moreover, the principle of set-off was known as Stoppage in the English Chancery
Courts.
o The English courts adopted this doctrine as a right of the defendant in the
year 1729.
o The adoption of this doctrine was through statutory procedure.
▪ It was held by Kerala High Court in Sukumaran v. Madhvan (1982) that only suit for
recovery of money is eligible for crossclaim in the form of set-off.
Essentials of Set-off
▪ Defendant has the right to claim.
▪ The plaint must be for the recovery of debts.
▪ The debt amount must be definite and mentioned.
▪ The amount must be of a recoverable nature.
 ▪ It must be within the pecuniary limit of the court.
▪ Both the parties must fill the same character as mentioned in the plaint.
Position of Set-off in CPC, 1908
Order VIII Rule 6 of the CPC states the particulars of the set-off to be given in the written
statement. The provision states following ingredients: -
▪ The defendant may submit a written statement containing the amount as debt to
set off at the first hearing of the suit and not afterwards.
▪ It will be on the same footing as a plaint in a cross-suit. But it will not affect the
lien.
▪ Rules for written statement and claim in the form of set-off are same.
Types of Set-off
There are two types of Set-off as mentioned below: -
▪ Legal Set-off
o Order VIII Rule 6(1) CPC discusses the Legal Set-off.
o The amount must be mentioned for the legal set-off.
o The amount must be of a recoverable nature.
o Defendant must pay court fees for the process.
o The set-off under written statement must be filed within the period of
limitation prescribed.
▪ Equitable Set-off
o It is present in a vague manner under Order XX Rule 19(3).
o The doctrine is based on the principle of ‘Equity, Justice and Good
Conscience’.
o It is governed by the English law.
o It is a claim for an unascertained amount of money.
o It must arise out of the same transaction or connected with the transaction
of money claimed in the petition.
o In the case of Maharashtra State Farming Corporation Ltd v. Belapur
Sugar and Allied Industries Ltd (2004), it was held that the amount
claimed must be out of the same transaction and must not be barred by
time in the equitable set-off.
o It is based on the discretion of the court of law.
o Defendant may or may not pay the court fees.
Counterclaim
▪ It is enshrined in Order VIII Rule 6A – 6G of the CPC.
▪ The 27th Law Commision Report of 1964 recommended to set-up a right to file
counterclaim in the civil procedure a right for the defendant.
▪ As an aftermath of the recommendation, CPC (Amendment) Act, 1976 added
rules 6B to 6G to the existing act.
Concept of Counterclaim
▪ It is a claim which is independent in nature or can be separated from the claim of
the plaintiff.
▪ When the cause of action arises against the plaintiff the defendant gets the right
to submit that claim along with the written statement.
▪ It is considered as a plaint by the defendant against the claim of the plaintiff and
is dealt with in the same manner as a plaint.
 ▪ Furthermore, the plaintiff has an opportunity to file a written statement against
the plaint consisting of the counterclaim.
▪ The Supreme Court held the right to file a counterclaim a statutory
right, in Laxmidas v. Nanabhai (1964).
▪ The Delhi HC in the case of Gastech Process Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. Saipem
(2009) deciphered it as a weapon in the hand of the defendant.
Purpose of Counterclaim
▪ To stop the multiplicity of suits.
▪ To save the time of the court of law.
▪ To make the civil procedure convenient for parties.
▪ To make the timely trials.
Time of Filing Counterclaim
▪ A counterclaim can be filed in three situations aligned below: -
▪ before or after filing the suit,
▪ before the defendant has delivered his defence,
▪ before the time limited for delivering his defence, expired.
Modus of Filing Counterclaim
▪ By amending written statement with the leave of the court and setting up
counterclaim;
▪ By mentioning into the subsequent pleading prescribed under Order 8 Rule 9.
Essentials of Filing Counterclaim
▪ It must be filed by the defendant.
▪ It must for an independent or a claim that is separable in nature.
▪ It must be filed against the plaintiff. It can be filed against co-defendants in some
scenarios.
▪ It must be in respect of any incident that happened before or after the filing of the
suit.
▪ It cannot be filed at the appellate stage before the appellate authority.
Difference Between Counterclaim and Set Off
▪ Order 8 Rule 6A mentions “Such counterclaim shall have the same effect as a
cross-suit so as to enable the Court to pronounce a final judgment in the same
suit, both on the original claim and on the counterclaim" whereas in Set-off, the
written statement has same effect as a plaint in cross-suit.
▪ In Set-off the suit must be for recovery of money and the claim must be for
a mutual debt but it is not the case of a counterclaim.
▪ Set-off is classified into two categories that are legal set-off and equitable set-off
whereas there is no such segregation in the case of a counterclaim.
▪ Set-off must arise out of same transaction but the counterclaim is not required to
arise out of same transaction.