JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURTS

(This assignment work has been submitted towards the fulfillment

of 7th Semester BA LLB 5-year Integrated studies.)
PROJECT AND REPORT PRESENTATION

Submitted by:
ATUL
RANJAN
Regd. No.-2041802026
BATCH - BA LLB (7th
Semester)

Guided by:
MR. SAK AZAD
Submitted to:
SOA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF LAW (SNIL)

SIKSHA ‘O’ ANUSANDHAN

(Deemed to be University)
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This is the most beautiful page of any project, book, or assignment as here, one
thanks or shows his/her gratitude to all who, directly or indirectly, helped them
in accomplishing the project or work assigned.

First, I would thank God for granting us a capable body and competent mind to
complete the assigned task. Then, I would thank my subject professor, Mr SAK
AZAD, for allowing me to show my knowledge and skills. Lastly, I would thank
my parents, who kept me mentally and psychologically motivated throughout
the project.

DATE: 10 NOVEMBER 2023

Place: Bhubaneswar, Odisha
ATUL RANJAN
4th year Student
BA.LLB(H)
S ‘O’A National Institute of Law (SNIL)
SIKSHA ‘O’ ANUSANDHAN UNIVERSITY
 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the assignment assigned to me as part of the sixth semester
examination in the pursuance of the 5-year BALLB(H) degree in SOA
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF LAW an unit of SOA DEEMED TO BE
UNIVERSITY, Bhubaneswar, Odisha.
This assignment has been accomplished by me, ATUL RANJAN, to the best of
my knowledge under the supervision and guidance of Mr. SAK AZAD.

DATE: 10 NOV 2023

Place: Bhubaneswar, Odisha
ATUL RANJAN
4th year Student
BA.LLB(H)
S ‘O’A National Institute of Law (SNIL)
SIKSHA ‘O’ ANUSANDHAN UNIVERSITY

3
 CONTENT

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Pg-05

CHAPTER 2: TYPES OF JURISDICTION Pg-06

CHAPTER 3: JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT Pg-10

CHAPTER 4: BARRED SUITS Pg-13

CHAPTER 5: AUTHORITY TO DECIDE ON QUESTION OF

JURISDICTION Pg-14

CHAPTER 6: EXCLUSION OF JURISDICTION Pg-15

CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION Pg-18

CHAPTER 8: REFERENCES Pg-19

 INTRODUCTION

It is a well-known fact that jurisdiction is a key component in determining whether

or not the court has the power to adjudicate the case. Without a clear understanding
of the jurisdiction, one cannot proceed with a case. Unless and until it is
determined that the court has the power and authority to adjudicate the matter, the
case cannot move forward. Jurisdiction means the power or authority conferred by
the law upon the court, tribunal or judge to decide or adjudicate any dispute
between the parties or pass judgment or order. It can be said that Jurisdiction is the
limit of a judicial authority. It is the extent to which a court may exercise its
authority over suits, cases, appeals, etc. It has not been defined in the Code of Civil
Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”). It was derived from two Latin words:
Juris and dicto. Jurisdiction determines the competency of the court to try the
matter. Often, people attach a wrong meaning to jurisdiction. They tend to have a
false belief that a court’s jurisdiction can only be determined by its geographical
limits, but that’s not true. There are different kinds of jurisdiction. Therefore, it
would be incorrect to classify jurisdiction into only one kind i.e., territorial
jurisdiction. A full bench of Cal HC in Hirday Nath Roy v. Ramchandra Barna
Sarma, ILR 48 Cal 138, defined Jurisdiction as, “the power of a Court to 'hear and
determine a cause, to adjudicate and exercise any judicial power in relation to it.
 TYPES OF JURISDICTION

The jurisdiction of the Court may be qualified or restricted by a variety of

circumstances with reference to the place, value and nature of the subject matter.
The power of a tribunal may be exercised within defined territorial limits. Its
cognizance may be restricted to subject-matters of prescribed value. It may be
competent to deal with controversies of a specified character, for instance,
testamentary or matrimonial causes, acquisition of lands for public poses, record of
rights as between landlords and tenants. Hirday Nath Roy v. Ramchandra Barna
Sarma, ILR 48 Cal 138, cal HC distinguished between existence of jurisdiction
and exercise of jurisdiction in the following words, “The authority to decide a
cause at all, not the decision rendered therein is what makes up jurisdiction; and
when there is jurisdiction of the person and subject-matter, the decision of all other
questions arising in the case is but an exercise of that jurisdiction.”Jurisdiction of a
court may be classified under the following categories:

1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter

It means that the court has the authority to hear and determine a particular type of
cases and that is prohibited from trying suits of other types by statute. Thus, a
family court can hear and determine cases which relate to family matters only. It
has no jurisdiction to try suits for specific performance of contracts, for a
dissolution of the partnership, for an injunction or suits relating to immovable
property. In the same manner, Consumer Forums have jurisdiction to decide cases
relating to the rights of the consumers only.
2. Pecuniary Jurisdiction

As the name suggests, this jurisdiction takes the monetary value of the case or suit
into consideration. Only if the court has the authority in terms of the suit’s financial
value to try the suit, the suit would be instituted in that court. Section 15 of the
CPC talks about the pecuniary jurisdiction of civil courts. It states Every suit shall
be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it.” This tries to
reduce the burden of a court of a higher level.

3. Original Jurisdiction

When the court has authority or power to try the matter, decide cases, suits, etc in
that court in the first instance would be called its original jurisdiction.

4. Appellate Jurisdiction

Appellate Jurisdiction is referred to as the power or authority conferred upon a

superior court to re-adjudicate a case that has already been adjudicated by a lower
court before.

5. Exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction

Exclusive jurisdiction is enjoyed by a Court or by an authority or tribunal when it

can exclusively deal with a subject matter to the exclusion of others. Concurrent or
coordinate jurisdiction is that which can be enjoyed or exercised by different courts
or authorities upon the same subject matter. It is therefore open to the litigant to
invoke jurisdiction of any such authority. So, if a builder is not handing over the
possession of the flat within stipulated time, an allotee can either approach RERA
(Real Estate Regulatory Authority) or the Consumer Forum.
6. Legal and equitable jurisdiction

This distinction held good for the courts in England, where common law courts
exercised legal juris and the court of Chancery exercised equitable juris. Courts in
India, however, enjoy both legal and equitable juris. E.g., Article 142 of the
Constitution of India, Section 151 of CPC, Section 482 CrPC.

7. General and Special Jurisdiction

General extends to all cases within a class, and special extends to special types of
cases like CBI court, Court under the POCSO Act.

8. Foreign jurisdiction

As per Section 2(a) of the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1947, Foreign jurisdiction is
defined as “any jurisdiction which by treaty, agreement, grant, usage, sufferance or
other lawful means the Central Government has for the time being in or in relation
to any area outside India”.

9. Civil and criminal jurisdiction

Courts of Civil Judge (Jr and Sr Division) exercise civil jurisdiction. A magistrate
or CJM exercises criminal jurisdiction.
10. Territorial Jurisdiction

Territorial Jurisdiction is where the geographical boundaries and limits determine

the jurisdiction of civil courts. The geographical boundaries are clearly demarcated
in the case of such a jurisdiction. Section 16 to Section 20 of the CPC talks about
the Territorial jurisdiction of civil courts.
 JURISDICTION OF THE CIVIL COURT

Section 9- The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have
jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature except suits of which their cognizance is
either expressly or impliedly barred.

Explanation I.- A suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is

a suit of a civil nature, notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the
decision of questions as to religious rites or ceremonies.

Explanation ll.- For the purposes of this section, it is immaterial whether or not
any fees are attached to the office referred to in Explanation I or whether or not
such office is attached to a particular place.

Conditions A civil court has jurisdiction to try a suit if two conditions are fulfilled:

1. The suit must be of a civil nature;

2. The cognizance of such a suit should not have been expressly or impliedly
barred.

The word “Civil” implies private rights and remedies as distinguished from
criminal, political, etc. and the word “nature” implies fundamental qualities or
characteristics. Thus, a suit is of a civil nature if the principal question therein
relates to the determination of a civil right and enforcement of it. Purely political
and religious questions are not covered by the term “Civil Nature”. But as per
Explanation I to Section 9, if the principal question in a suit is of a civil nature, but
it incidentally involves determination relating to a question as to religious rites and
ceremonies, it does not cease to be a suit of a civil nature.
Samir Sajjad Ahmad v. Mohammad Ayub, decided on 19.02.2018 by HC of
Rajasthan (Jodhpur Bench): Dispute related to religious ceremonies of two groups
of Muslims. The plaintiff filed a civil suit for permanent injunction and declaration
contending that Dargah is a waqf property. The defendant objected that the civil
suit was not maintainable. The lower court rejected the suit, High court set aside
the decision of the lower court and held that “Explanation I and II of S.9 are
inclusive, and they expand it rather limit it”. The court held that the right to
worship is a civil right and can be enforced.

Nafar Chandra Chatterjee v. Kailash Chandra Mondal, AIR 1921 Calcutta

328, it was held: "Where there were no Ecclesiastical Courts, there was nothing to
prevent civil Courts from holding that Pujari has been removed from his office on
valid grounds.” It shows that in the absence of a religious Court, the Civil Court’s
jurisdiction to decide religious questions especially related to the occupation of a
religious office or property of a religious institution etc is not barred.

In Most. Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma, AIR 1995 SC

2001, SC held that as per Explanation 1 to Section 9, the jurisdiction of Civil
Courts also extends to religious matters having Civil consequences. In the absence
of any special Courts, any religious dispute is cognizable by the Civil Court except
in very rare cases where the declaration sought may be what constitutes a religious
rite.

FOLLOWING ARE SUITS OF CIVIL NATURE:

• suits for specific performance of contracts or for damages for breach of contracts;

• suits for specific relief;

• suits for restitution of conjugal rights;

• suits for dissolution of marriages;

• suits for rent; • suits for or on account;

• suits for rights of a franchise;

• suits for rights to hereditary offices;

• suits against wrongful dismissal from service and for salaries, etc.

• suits relating to rights to property;

• suits relating to rights of worship;

• suits relating to taking out of the religious procession

Suits not of a civil nature:

1. Suits involving principally caste questions;

2. suits involving purely religious rites or ceremonies;

3. suits for upholding mere dignity or honor; (Shri Shankar v. Bharti, 6 WR 39

PC);

4. suits for recovery of voluntary payments or offerings;

 Barred Suits

1. Suits expressly barred- a suit is said to be ‘expressly barred ’ when it is barred

by any enactment for the time being in force, e.g., S. 170 of Representation of
People Act, S.37 of IDA, S. 293 of Income Tax Act.

But every presumption should be made in favor of the jurisdiction of a civil court
and the provision of exclusion of jurisdiction of a court must be strictly construed.

Dhulla Bhai vs State of MP, AIR 1969 SC 78. If there is any doubt about the
ousting of jurisdiction of a civil court, the court will lean to an interpretation which
would maintain the jurisdiction. Thus, matters falling within the exclusive
jurisdiction of revenue courts or under the code of criminal procedure or matters
dealt with by special tribunals under the relevant statutes, e.g. by industrial
tribunal, income tax tribunal, revenue tribunal, electronic tribunal, rent tribunal,
cooperative tribunal, motor accident claims tribunal, etc. or by domestic tribunals,
e.g. Bar Council, Medical Council, university, club etc. are expressly barred from
the cognizance of a civil court. But if the remedy provided by a statute is not
adequate and all questions cannot be decided by a special tribunal, the jurisdiction
of a civil court is not barred. (similar observation made in State of TN vs
Ramalinga, AIR 1986 SC 794)

2. Suits impliedly barred- a suit is said to be impliedly barred when it is barred by

general principles of law. Certain suits, though of a civil nature, are barred from the
cognizance of a civil court on the grounds of public policy. Thus, no suit shall lie
for recovery of costs incurred in criminal prosecution or for enforcement of a right
upon a contract hit by section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Likewise,
political questions belong to the domain of public administrative law and are
outside the jurisdiction of civil courts. A civil court has no jurisdiction to
adjudicate upon disputes of a political nature.
WHO MAY DECIDE THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION

It is well settled that a civil court has inherited power to decide its own jurisdiction
though ultimately it may come to the conclusion that it has no jurisdiction to try the
suit. Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board vs Abdul Rauf, AIR 2012 Pat 137.

Presumption as to jurisdiction

In dealing with the question whether a civil court’s jurisdiction to entertain a suit is
barred or not, it is necessary to bear in mind that every presumption should be
made in favor of the jurisdiction of a civil court. The exclusion of jurisdiction of a
civil court to entertain civil causes should not be readily inferred unless the
relevant statute contains an express provision to that effect, or leads to a necessary
and inevitable implication of the nature.

Burden of proof

It is also well-settled that it is for the party who seeks to oust the jurisdiction of a
civil court to establish it and that a statute ousting the jurisdiction of a civil court
must be strictly construed. Where such a contention is raised, it has to be
determined in the light of the words used in the statute, the scheme of the relevant
provisions and the object and purpose of the enactment. In the case of a doubt as to
jurisdiction, the court should lean towards the assumption of jurisdiction.
 Exclusion of jurisdiction: limitations

In the leading decision of Secretary of State v. Mask & Co. AIR 1940 PC 105, the
Privy Council rightly observed: “It is settled law that the exclusion of the
jurisdiction of the civil court is not to be readily inferred, but that such exclusion
must either be explicitly expressed or clearly implied. It is also well established
that even if jurisdiction is so excluded, the civil courts have jurisdiction to examine
into cases where the provisions of the Act have not been complied with, or the
statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of
judicial procedure.” Principles laid down in Dhulabhai vs. State of MP, AIR 1969
SC 78.

(1) Where the statute gives finality to the orders of the special tribunals, the civil
court's jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do
what the civil courts would normally do in a suit. Such provision, however, does
not exclude those cases where the provisions of the particular Act have not been
complied with, or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the
fundamental principles of judicial procedure.

(2) Where there is an express bar of the jurisdiction of the court, an examination of
the scheme of the particular Act to find the adequacy or the sufficiency of the
remedies provided may be relevant but is not decisive to sustain the jurisdiction of
the civil court. Where there is no express exclusion, the examination of the
remedies and the scheme of the particular Act to find out the intendment becomes
necessary, and the result of the inquiry may be decisive.
In Rajasthan SRTC Vs Krishna Kant, AIR 1995 SC 1715, the principles relating
to bar of jurisdiction have been laid down thus, (1) Where the dispute arises from
general law of contract, i.e., where reliefs are claimed on the basis of the general
law of contract, a suit filed in civil Court cannot be said to be not maintainable,
even though such a dispute may also constitute an "industrial dispute" within the
meaning of Section 2(k) or Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (2)
Where, however, the dispute involves recognition, observance or enforcement of
any of the rights or obligations created by the Industrial Disputes Act, the only
remedy is to approach the forums created by the said Act.

(3) Similarly, where the dispute involves the recognition, observance or

enforcement of rights and obligations created by enactments like Industrial
Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 - which can be called 'sister enactments'
to Industrial Disputes Act - and which do not provide a forum for resolution of
such disputes, the only remedy shall be to approach the forums created by the
Industrial Disputes Act provided may constitute industrial disputes within the
meaning of Section 2(k) and Section 2-A of Industrial Disputes Act or where such
enactment says that such dispute shall be either treated as an Industrial dispute or
says that it shall be adjudicated by any of the forums created by the Industrial
Disputes Act. Otherwise, recourse to the Civil Court is open.

In Bank of Baroda v. Gopak Shriram panda , 2021 (4) AIR Bom. R 64, a DB of
Bom HC held that presumption, would always be in favour of Civil Court having
jurisdiction. Exclusion has to be express or implied. If legislature intends to oust
jurisdiction of Civil Courts, it must say so expressly or by necessary implication.
Similarly, when legislature intends to confer jurisdiction upon Tribunal, it has to
expressly define parameters of such jurisdiction. Thus there cannot be unfettered
jurisdiction upon any Tribunal, and jurisdiction of Tribunal is always controlled by
purpose for which it has been created.
Thus, where title to property, in respect of which 'security interest', has been
created in favour of Bank or Financial Institution, stands in name of borrower or
guarantor, DRT (Debt Recovery Tribunal) has exclusive jurisdiction to try such
matters, to total exclusion of Civil Court.
 Conclusion

Civil court has jurisdiction to investigate whether tribunal and quasi-judicial bodies
or legal executive acted within their jurisdiction. It can be presumed that section 9
essentially deals with the issue of the civil court’s jurisdiction to consider a matter.
Civil court has jurisdiction to consider a suit of a civil nature except when it’s
notification is expressly barred or bared by significant suggestion. Civil court has
jurisdiction to resolve the problem of its jurisdiction.
 References

1. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2. https://www.legalbites.in/jurisdiction-under-code-of-civil-proce
dure-1908/#_ftn2
3. https://districts.ecourts.gov.in/sites/default/files/Jurisdiction%
20of%20courts%20by%20Sri%20K%20Srinivasa%20Rao.pdf
4. https://blog.ipleaders.in/jurisdiction-of-civil-courts-2/#Pecunia
ry_jurisdiction
5. https://blog.ipleaders.in/concept-inherent-jurisdiction-section-
9-civil-procedure-code-1908/