CIA- I

THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

JURISDICTION AND PLACE OF SUING UNDER THE CODE OF

SUBMITTED TO: DR. RANJANA KUMARI BHARTI

DUBMITTED BY: MEGHNA GAHLOT

JURISDICTION

The term ‘Jurisdiction’ refers to the legal authority of a court to hear, try, and adjudicate a
case. It is the fundamental principle that determines whether a court has the competency to
deal with a particular legal dispute. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC),
jurisdiction is broadly classified into subject matter jurisdiction, pecuniary jurisdiction, and
territorial jurisdiction, each of which plays a crucial role in ensuring the proper administration
of justice.

1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction ensures that a court can only hear cases of a specific
nature, depending on the subject matter of the dispute. For example, family courts
have jurisdiction over matrimonial disputes, while commercial courts handle
business-related conflicts. Similarly, intellectual property cases are heard by
designated tribunals or courts dealing with such matters. A court cannot entertain a
matter beyond its subject matter jurisdiction, as doing so would render its decision
invalid.
2. Pecuniary Jurisdiction, governed by Sections 6 and 15 of CPC, dictates that a court
can only hear cases within a specified monetary limit. Courts are categorized based on
the financial value of the claims they can entertain, ensuring that higher-value cases
are dealt with by higher courts. Section 15 mandates that every suit shall be instituted
in the court of the lowest grade competent to try it, preventing the unnecessary
burdening of higher courts with cases that can be adjudicated by lower courts.
3. Territorial Jurisdiction, covered under Sections 16 to 20 of CPC, stipulates that a suit
must be filed within the geographical boundaries where the dispute originated, where
the defendant resides, or where the cause of action occurred. Section 16 specifically
applies to suits related to immovable property, requiring that they be instituted in the
court within whose jurisdiction the property is situated. If a property is situated in
multiple jurisdictions, Section 17 allows the plaintiff to file a suit in any one of those
jurisdictions. Section 18 provides guidance in cases where jurisdictional uncertainties
exist due to property location.

Additionally, original, and appellate jurisdiction play a crucial role in determining where a
case is heard. Original jurisdiction refers to the court where a case is initially filed, whereas
appellate jurisdiction allows higher courts to review decisions made by lower courts. The
Supreme Court in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India (2004) held that jurisdiction
is determined by territorial and subject-matter constraints, reinforcing that a court cannot
assume jurisdiction arbitrarily. Similarly, in Hiralal Patni v. Kali Nath (1962), the Supreme
Court ruled that jurisdiction is based on the nature of the claim rather than the defense raised
by the defendant, further emphasizing the importance of correct jurisdictional determination.

The concept of jurisdiction aligns with Austin’s Theory of Legal Positivism, which
emphasizes that legal validity is based on sovereign authority rather than morality. The
CPC’s jurisdictional framework follows this principle by ensuring that courts operate within
the boundaries defined by the legislature. Courts cannot assume authority beyond their
statutory jurisdiction, as this would violate the rule of law.
Similarly, Hans Kelsen’s Pure Theory of Law asserts that a legal system operates as a
hierarchy, where each legal norm derives its validity from a higher norm. The CPC follows
this hierarchical approach by assigning different levels of jurisdiction to various courts based
on subject matter, territory, and pecuniary limits.4
From a Natural Justice perspective, jurisdiction ensures that justice is administered fairly and
that no party is deprived of the right to be heard. The principles of nemo judex in causa sua
(no one should be a judge in their own cause) and audi alteram partem (both sides must be
heard) are upheld through procedural safeguards such as jurisdictional limitations and rules
regarding the place of suing. In Union of India v. T.R. Verma (1957 AIR 882), the Supreme
Court held that jurisdiction must be exercised in a manner consistent with principles of
natural justice.

PLACE OF SUING

The ‘Place of Suing’ refers to the appropriate court in which a lawsuit should be instituted,
ensuring legal convenience, and preventing unnecessary hardship for litigants. It is
determined based on the nature of the dispute and the parties involved. Section 16 of CPC
provides that suits concerning immovable property must be filed where the property is
located. This ensures that local courts with better knowledge of the geographical and legal
conditions of the area handle the matter efficiently. However, under Section 19, cases related
to movable property or personal wrongs (such as defamation, assault, or breach of contract)
can be instituted either where the defendant resides or where the cause of action arises.

For suits that do not fall under specific categories, Section 20 serves as a general provision,
allowing cases to be filed where the defendant resides, carries on business, or where the cause
of action arises. This provision ensures flexibility and fairness by allowing plaintiffs to
approach courts based on practical considerations. The Supreme Court in M/s Patel
Roadways Ltd. v. Prasad Trading Co. (1991) reinforced the significance of territorial
jurisdiction in determining the place of suing, highlighting that jurisdictional provisions
should be interpreted strictly to prevent inconvenience to parties. Similarly, in Karan Singh v.
Chaman Paswan (1955), the Court held that jurisdiction is determined at the time of suit
initiation and cannot be altered later, ensuring stability in legal proceedings.
The significance of jurisdiction and the place of suing lies in maintaining judicial discipline,
preventing forum shopping, and ensuring efficient case management. The procedural
framework under CPC provides clear guidelines to ensure that every dispute is heard by the
appropriate court based on its nature, value, and location. These legal principles ensure the
fair administration of justice by assigning cases to courts that possess the requisite authority,
expertise, and territorial competence to adjudicate upon them.

CONCLUSION
Jurisdiction and place of suing are essential principles that govern the institution of suits
under the CPC. Proper determination of jurisdiction ensures that cases are adjudicated by the
correct forum, preventing delays and legal ambiguities. The provisions under Sections 9, 15-
20 of the CPC, along with various judicial precedents, establish a comprehensive framework
for determining the appropriate forum for civil disputes. Additionally, jurisprudential
theories such as Austin’s legal positivism, Kelsen’s hierarchy of legal norms, and the
principles of natural justice reinforce the necessity of jurisdictional limitations. Courts must
strictly adhere to these principles to uphold the integrity of the judicial process and ensure
access to justice.