Scribd
Upload
8K views9 pages

Place of Suing

The document summarizes sections 15-21 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) regarding the appropriate court for filing a lawsuit in India. Key points include: 1) Every suit must be filed in the court of lowest grade that is competent to try the case based on its pecuniary jurisdiction (Section 15). 2) Suits relating to immovable property must be filed in the court within whose jurisdiction the property is located (Section 16). 3) Suits for wrongs to a person or movable property can be filed where the cause of action arose or where the defendant resides (Section 19-20). 4) Objections to the jurisdiction of a court are not allowed unless

Uploaded by

gaurav singh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
8K views9 pages

Place of Suing

The document summarizes sections 15-21 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) regarding the appropriate court for filing a lawsuit in India. Key points include: 1) Every suit must be filed in the court of lowest grade that is competent to try the case based on its pecuniary jurisdiction (Section 15). 2) Suits relating to immovable property must be filed in the court within whose jurisdiction the property is located (Section 16). 3) Suits for wrongs to a person or movable property can be filed where the cause of action arose or where the defendant resides (Section 19-20). 4) Objections to the jurisdiction of a court are not allowed unless

Uploaded by

gaurav singh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 9

Place of Suing S.

15 to 21 CPC

Place of Suing:

S.15 to 21 CPC deals with the Court in which a suit is to be instituted, as follows:

S.15 Court in which suits to be instituted

S.16 Suits to be instituted where subject matter situate

S.17 Suits for immovable property situate within jurisdiction of different


Courts

S.18 Place of institution of suit where local limits of jurisdiction of


Courts are uncertain

S.19 Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables

S.20 Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of


action arises

S.21 Objections to jurisdiction


S.15 Court in which suits to be instituted

Every suit shall be instituted in the Court of lowest grade competent to try it. Here
competency refers to pecuniary jurisdiction, which shall be determined by High
Court from time to time.

Objects:

the main objects of the section is :

 To reduce the burden of the higher Courts


 Afford convenience to the parties and witnesses who may be examined by
them in such suits.

The District Judge and Sub-Ordinate Judges all have jurisdiction over all Original
Suits., cognizable by the Civil Court subject to the condition suits are to be
instituted in a Court of lowest grade competent to try it.

S.16 Suits to be instituted where subject matter situate

 Subject to pecuniary and other limitations prescribed by any law, suits for:

1. Recovery of immoveable property with or without rents and profits,

2. Partition of immoveable property,

3. Foreclosure, sale, redemption in cases of mortgage or charge upon

immoveable property,

4. Determination of any other right or interest in immoveable property,

5. Compensation of wrong to immoveable property,


6. Recovery of moveable property actually under attachment,

Shall be instituted in Court, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the
property is situate. It is also provided that

- When suit is filed t obtain relief respecting or compensating any wrong


to any immoveable property,

- And relief can be entirely obtained through personal obedience.

In above case, the suit can be instituted either at

 Court within whose local limit the property is situated.


 Court within whose local jurisdiction the defendant voluntarily resides or
conducts business or trade.

Anand Bazaar Patrika V Biswanath Prasad

Held a suit for Specific performance for, contract of sale with possession, it
has to be instituted in the Court in whose jurisdiction the property is situated and
can not be filed where cause of action arises.

Seetha Rama Chetty V Kamala Amma

In a suit filed in Bangalore for a property located in Tamilnadu, to


determine right and interest in the immoveable property, Court held that as long as
the defendant is residing within the jurisdiction of Bangalore Court, where the suit
is instituted, the suit was maintainable under S.16(d) read with the proviso.
S.17 Suits for immovable property situate within jurisdiction of
different Courts

Where the subject matter of the suit, immoveable property, is situated


within the local jurisdiction of two or more different Courts, the suits may be
instituted in any Court, within whose local jurisdiction, a portion of the property is
situated, and Court is competent to adjudicate over entire suit property, not just
portion situated in its jurisdiction.

S.18 Place of institution of suit where local limits of jurisdiction of


Courts are uncertain

When it is uncertain as regards under which of the two or more Courts, the
territorial jurisdiction falls into, and one of such Courts has also ascertained such
uncertainty, then it may proceed to entertain and dispose the suit related to the
property; after recording the existence of such uncertainty.

Where no such statement has been recorded and objection is raised in


appeal or revision, the Higher Court will not allow such objection unless

 At time of institution of suit, no reasonable ground for uncertainty as to


Court was there, and,
 It has resulted in consequent failure of justice.

In these cases, apart from the uncertain territorial jurisdiction, the Court should be
competent as regards

 nature of suit
 pecuniary jurisdiction.
S.19 Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables

In case of wrong to person or moveables :-

 In place where Cause of Action arose


 In place where the defendant ordinarily resides or carries business or
personally works for gain.

Eg

Defendant Hits Plaintiff

A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------> B

Madras Delhi Delhi <= Place of


Residence/Occurrence

Cause of action lies in Delhi, so can sue in Delhi. The defendant resides in Madras,
so can sue in Madras.

S.20 Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of


action arises

Subject to afore said limitations, i.e Ss 15 to 19,every suit shall be instituted


in Court within whose local limits of jurisdiction:-
- Defendant(s) at time of commencement of suit actually or voluntarily resides
carries business or trade or personally works for gain.

- any of the defendant ( if more than one) at time of commencement of suit actually
or voluntarily resides carries business or trade or personally works for gain,
provided (a) Court gives leave to do so (b) Defendants who don’t reside there
accept.

- Where cause of action arises.

For the purpose of S. 20, it is deemed that a Corporation carries on its business at
its

- Sole/ Principal office.

- Sub-Ordinate Office, if cause of action arose at such location.

Eg

A resides in Shimla, B resides in Calcutta , C resides in Delhi. A B and C together


in Benaras , and B and C together execute a joint promissory note payable on
demand and delivered it to A in Benaras.

A may sue B and C at (A) Benaras where Cause of Action.


(B) Calcutta or Delhi where A/B resides provided other
defendant accepts or Court grants leave.

Patel Roadways V Parsad Trading Company 1992

Where defendant has Principal Office at one place and Sub Ordinate office
at another, and Cause of Action arose, in place where the subordinate office is
located, then the place of subordinate office where cause of action arose is the
relevant place for filing the suit and not the place where principal office is located.
Held, that, the explanation to S.20 provides an alternative locus for corporation’s
place of business and not an additional one.

ABC Lamnart Private Ltd V AP Agencies

Held, the jurisdiction of Court in matter of contract will depend on the situs
of contract and Cause of Action arising through connecting factors. Further held,
the parties may agree to vest jurisdiction in one of the many competent Court and
such Ouster Clause is valid if

- the clause is explicit , precise and unambiguous.

- not hit by Ss. 23 and 28 of Indian Contract Act.

S.21 Objections to jurisdiction

No objection as to place of suing is allowed in any Appellate or


Revisionary Court , unless

- such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest
possible opportunity.
- in cases where settlement is arrived, at or before, such settlement and

- there has been a consequent failure of justice.

No objection as to competence of Court as to pecuniary jurisdiction will be


allowed at any appellate or revisionary Court unless, conditions mentioned above
are satisfied.

No objection as to competence of executing Court will be allowed unless

- such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible
opportunity and,

- there has been a consequent failure of justice.

RSDV Finance Company Ltd V Shree Vallabh Glass Works 1993

Where in respect of a suit the two conditions namely

1)such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the


earliest possible opportunity.

2) in cases where settlement is arrived, at or before, such settlement


, are satisfied and the third condition namely

3) there has been a consequent failure of justice, has not been


satisfied, it was HELD that Court would not be justified in allowing objection to
jurisdiction of Court in appeal.
S 21A Bar on suit to set aside decree on objection as to place of suing.

No suit shall lie challenging the validity of a decree passed in a former suit
between the same parties, or between the parties under whom they or any of them
claim, litigating under the same title, on any ground based on an objection as to the
place of suing.

Explanation.—The expression “former suit” means a suit which has been decided
prior to the decision in the suit in which the validity of the decree is questioned,
whether or not the previously decided suit was instituted prior to the suit in which
the validity of such decree is questioned.]

You might also like