RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW

PUNJAB

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE,1908

PROJECT TOPIC- Jurisdiction under C.P.C.

Submitted by – Submitted to-

Aditi Arya Advocate Gurjeet Singh
Roll no.-20142 RGNUL
Vth semester
 INDEX

1. Rough Draft………………………………………03-04
2. Introduction…………………………………………..05
3. Types of Jurisdiction……………………………..06-08
4. Lack of Jurisdiction- Implications…………………..09
5. Section-9 Jurisdiction……………………………..10-19
6. Conclusion…………………………………………….20

2
3
4
 INTRODUCTION

‘Ubi jus ibi remedium’ is a fundamental principle of Indian legal system. It was adopted from
English Law. The maxim implies that where there is a right, there is a remedy. In simple terms,
right and remedy can be construed inseparable, like two sides of a coin which exist jointly.
This legal principle is the reason why a civil suit can be instituted in a civil court for the
grievance of a civil nature, unless a statute bars it expressly or impliedly. Although not defined
in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the term ‘Jurisdiction’ can be understood as the
competence of a court to decide a matter or dispute.

The word jurisdiction is of actually made up of two Latin words, “Juris” and “Dicta”, which
means law and speech respectively. Thus, the word jurisdiction, in its literal sense mean, “I
speak by law.” There is no definition of jurisdiction given in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The Black’s Law Dictionary defines jurisdiction as “A court’s power to decide a case or issue
a decree.”Thus, in order to decide upon a case or issue a decree, a Court has to see whether the
particular case falls within its jurisdiction or not. It is thus, the power to hear and determine a
cause and adjudicate or exercise any judicial function in relation to it.

In the Official Trustee v. Sachindra Nath1 case, the Supreme Court emphasized that jurisdiction
should encompass not just the ability to hear a case but also the authority to hear, make
decisions on the presented issues, and take appropriate actions to resolve the specific dispute
between the parties involved. A court vested with jurisdiction is considered a competent court,
and each country defines jurisdiction within its legal system, which plays a significant role,
directly or indirectly, in ensuring efficient administration and effective management of legal
proceedings.

1
1969 AIR 823 1969 SCR (3) 92

5
 Types of Jurisdiction

1. TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

There are local and territorial limits beyond which jurisdiction cannot be exercised by
a court. The Government fixes these limits. Jurisdiction can be exercised by District
Judge within his/her district and not outside it. Thus, the District Judge of Varanasi can
only exercise jurisdiction within the district limits of Varanasi. No jurisdiction is
possessed by a court for trying a suit for immovable property which is situated beyond
its local limits. The jurisdiction of a High Court is within the territory of its home-state
only.

2. PECUNIARY JURISDICTION

It is provided by the Code of Civil Procedure,1908, that a court must only try those
suits, whose value of the subject-matter or the amount involved falls within the
pecuniary limits of court’s jurisdiction. 2
There are no pecuniary limits imposed on
some courts, while most of the courts have an upper-limit of a particular amount
regarding the suit they can try. Thus, a Presidency Small Causes Court cannot entertain
a suit in which the amount claimed exceeds Rs. 1000.

3. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

Subject matter jurisdiction refers to a court's authority to hear and decide cases related
to a specific type of legal matter. In the context of the Civil Procedure Code, this means
that the court's jurisdiction is limited to civil cases, which include disputes between
individuals or entities regarding their rights, property, or contracts. The Code outlines
the types of civil matters that fall under the jurisdiction of civil courts.

2
Section 6 of the Civil Procedure, 1908

6
4. Civil and Criminal Jurisdiction
Civil and criminal jurisdiction are distinct. The Civil Procedure Code, 1908, specifically
deals with civil jurisdiction. It lays down the rules and procedures for civil cases, such as
property disputes, contract breaches, and family matters. In contrast, criminal jurisdiction,
governed by separate laws, pertains to offenses against the state or society, and the
proceedings are covered by the Criminal Procedure Code.

5. Original and Appellate Jurisdiction

A court's jurisdiction can be categorized as either original or appellate. When a court

operates in its original jurisdiction, it handles initial lawsuits. On the other hand, in its
appellate jurisdiction, it reviews and decides on appeals. The Munsif's court and the court
of small causes exclusively handle original cases. In contrast, the District Judge's court and
several High Courts possess the authority to deal with both original lawsuits and appeals.

6. Exclusive Jurisdiction
Exclusive jurisdiction means that a particular court or tribunal has the sole authority to hear
and decide cases on specific matters. The Civil Procedure Code may specify exclusive
jurisdiction for certain types of civil cases, ensuring that only the designated court can
handle them, and other civil courts cannot.

7. General and special Jurisdiction

General jurisdiction encompasses a court's broad authority to adjudicate a wide array of

cases, both civil and criminal, without specific limitations, typically including lower-level
courts capable of handling various legal matters. Conversely, special jurisdiction pertains
to a court's restricted authority, focusing on specific case types as defined by law or statute.

7
These courts are established to address particular legal issues, cultivating expertise in those
areas. For example, a family court specializes in domestic matters such as divorce and child
custody, providing specialized resolution for these specific legal issues.

8. Legal and Equitable Jurisdiction

Legal and equitable jurisdiction distinguish between the types of remedies a court can
provide. Legal jurisdiction typically involves cases where a party is seeking monetary
damages or specific performance of a contract. Equitable jurisdiction, on the other hand,
deals with cases where non-monetary remedies, like injunctions or specific performance,
are required. The Civil Procedure Code may provide guidelines on how courts handle both
legal and equitable aspects of civil cases.

9. Municipal and foreign Jurisdiction

Municipal jurisdiction refers to the authority of a local court within a specific geographic
area, often limited to a city or municipality. The Civil Procedure Code outlines the
jurisdiction of various levels of civil courts, such as district courts and high courts, within
India. Foreign jurisdiction pertains to cases involving individuals or entities outside the
country's borders. In such cases, the Code may address issues related to the recognition and
enforcement of foreign judgments in Indian courts.

In summary, the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, sets the rules and procedures for civil matters
in India, specifying the jurisdiction, authority, and processes for handling various types of
civil cases, while criminal matters are governed by separate legislation. The Code also
addresses the distinction between legal and equitable remedies and the concept of exclusive
jurisdiction for certain types of cases

8
 LACK OF JURISDICTION- IMPLICATIONS

Supreme Court, in the case of Ujjam Bai v. State of U.P.3, held that there exists a clear
distinction between ‘irregular exercise of jurisdiction’ and ‘want of jurisdiction’. The decision
of a court cannot be questioned with respect to its rightness or wrongness, once it has been
recognized that a court has jurisdiction to preside over a matter, and make a judicial
adjudication of it. This is because when power to make a decision is granted, it also conveys
the power to decide rightly or wrongly.

As stated by Lord Hobhouse, “A court has jurisdiction to decide wrong as well right. If it
decides wrong, the wronged party can only the take the course prescribed by law for setting
matters right; and if that course is not taken, the decision, however wrong, cannot be
disturbed.”

In simple terms, the decree passed by a civil court will be null and void if there is inherent lack
of jurisdiction.4 When a court irregularly exercises its jurisdiction, and causes an error thereof,
such error can be remedied through a revision or appeal, and where no such option is available
the decision cannot be remedied and such a decree would be construed as final. This is so
because ‘irregular exercise of jurisdiction’ does not go to the heart of the matter of exercising
jurisdiction.

3
Ujjam Bai v. State of U.P., AIR 1962 SC 1621
4
Amrit Bhikaji Kale v. Kashinath Janardhan Trade, (1983) 3 SCC 437

9
 SECTION-9: JURISDICTION

1) Section 9
As per the Code of Civil Procedure, unless barred expressly or impliedly, trial of all
suits of civil nature come within the jurisdiction of civil courts. Section 9 of the Code
reads, “The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction
to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either
expressly or impliedly barred.

1
[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.

2
[Explanation II].--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.]”

2) Conditions
Subject to the fulfilment of the following two conditions, a civil court has jurisdiction
to try a suit:

1) The suit must be of a civil nature

2) There should be no expressed or implied bar on the cognizance of such a suit

a) Suits of civil nature

(i) Meaning- No definition of the word “civil” has been provided in the
Code. As per oxford dictionary, it refers to the private rights and remedies
of a citizen differentiated from political rights and other rights.
The definition of the term ‘nature’ as per dictionary has been defined as
‘the fundamental qualities of a person or thing; identity or essential
character; sort, kind, character’.It is thus wider in content. The expression

10
 ‘civil nature’ is wider than the expression ‘civil proceedings’. Thus, a suit
is of a civil is of a nature if the principal question therein relates to the
determination of a civil right and enforcement thereof. It is not the status
of the parties to the suit, but the subject matter of it which determines
whether or not the suit is of a civil nature.

(ii) Nature and Scope- the expression “suit of a civil nature” covers a
citizen's private rights and obligations. That expression does not cover
political and religious questions. A suit in which the principle question
relates to caste or religion is not a suit of a civil nature. But suppose the
principle question in a suit is of a civil nature (the right to property or to
an office) and the adjudication incidentally involves the determination
relating to a caste question or to religious rights and ceremonies. In that
case, it does not cease to be a suit of a civil nature, and the jurisdiction of
a civil court is not barred.
(iii)
The court has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon those questions also in order
to decide the principal question which is of a civil nature. Explanation II
has been added by the Amendment Act of 1976. Before this explanation,
there was a divergence of judicial opinion as to whether a suit relating to
a religious office to which no fees or emoluments were attached can be
said to be a suit of a civil nature. But the legal position has now been
clarified by Explanation II which specifically provides that a suit relating
to a religious office is maintainable whether or not it carries any fees or
whether or not it is attached to a particular place.
(iv) Expounding of the Doctrine- In the case of Most Rev. P.M.A.
Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma5, the concept of jurisdiction of civil
courts under Section 9 was explained by the Supreme Court:
“The expansive nature of the section is demonstrated by use of
phraseology both positive and negative. The earlier part opens the door
widely and latter debars entry to only those which are expressly or
impliedly barred. The two explanations, one existing from inception and

5
AIR 1995 SC 2001

11
later added in 1976, bring out clearly the legislative intention of extending
operation of the section to religious matters where right to property or
office is involved irrespective of whether any fee is attached to the office
or not. The language used is simple but explicit and clear. It is structured
on the basic of a civilized jurisprudence that absence of machinery for
enforcement of right renders it nugatory. The heading which is normally
a key to the section brings out unequivocally that all civil suits are
cognizable unless barred. What is meant by it is explained further by
widening the ambit of the section by use of the word ‘shall’ and the
expression ‘all suits of a civil nature unless expressly or impliedly barred’.
ach word and expression casts an obligation on the court to exercise
jurisdiction for enforcement of rights. The word 'shall' makes it
mandatory. No court can refuse to entertain a suit if it is of the description
mentioned in the section. That is amplified by the use of the expression,
‘all suits of civil nature’. The word 'civil' according to the dictionary
means, 'relating to the citizen as an individual; civil rights.’ In Black's
Law Dictionary it is defined as, ‘relating to provide rights and remedies
sought by civil actions as contrasted with criminal proceedings’. In law it
is understood as an antonym of criminal. Historically the two broad
classifications were civil and criminal. Revenue, tax and company etc.
were added to it later. But they too pertain to the larger family of civil.
There is thus no doubt about the width of the word civil. Its width has been
stretched further by using the word nature along with it. That is even those
suits are cognizable which are not only civil but are even of civil nature….

The word ‘nature’ has defined as ‘the fundamental qualities of a person

or thing; identity or essential character, sort; kind; character’. It is thus
wider in content. The word ‘civil nature’ is wider than the word ‘civil
proceeding’. The section would, therefore, be available in every case
where the dispute was of the characteristics of affecting one’s rights which
are not only civil but of civil nature.”

12
 (v) Test: A lawsuit involving the contested rights to property or an office is
considered a civil matter, even if these rights hinge on the resolution of
religious rituals or ceremonies.6
(vi) Suits of civil nature: Illustrations- The following suits are suits of civil
nature:
1. Suits seeking specific reliefs.
2. Suits pertaining to the right to share in offerings.
3. Suits concerning franchise rights.
4. Suits for rent disputes.
5. Suits for the dissolution of marriages.
6. Suits for the restitution of conjugal rights.
7. Suits related to accounts.
8. Suits related to property rights.
9. Suits for Yajmanvritis rights.
10. Suits regarding religious procession permissions.
11. Suits for hereditary office rights.
12.Suits concerning rights of worship.
13. Suits for damages caused by civil wrongs.
14. Suits against wrongful dismissal from service and for salary disputes

(vii) Suits not of civil nature: Illustrations- The following are not suits of a
civil nature:
1. Suits for upholding mere dignity or honor.
2. Suits involving purely religious rites or ceremonies.
3. Suits for recovery of voluntary payments or offerings.
4. Suits involving principally caste questions.
5. Suits against expulsions from caste, etc

b) Cognizance not barred

6
Sinha Ramanuja v. Ranga Ramanuja, AIR 1961 SC 1720

13
 As mentioned earlier, an individual with a civil grievance possesses the privilege
to initiate a civil lawsuit, unless such legal action is explicitly or implicitly
prohibited.

I. Suits expressly barred- A lawsuit is considered 'expressly barred' when

it's prohibited by current legislation in force.7 A competent legislature can
restrict the authority of civil courts for specific types of civil suits, as long
as they stay within their legal jurisdiction and don't violate constitutional
provisions.8 However, it's essential to presume in favor of civil court
jurisdiction, and any provision excluding its jurisdiction must be
interpreted strictly.9 If there's any doubt about whether the civil court's
jurisdiction is excluded, the court will tend towards an interpretation that
maintains its jurisdiction.10 For instance, matters falling under the
exclusive jurisdiction of revenue courts, the Criminal Procedure Code, or
special tribunals established under relevant statutes, such as industrial,
income tax, revenue, election, rent, cooperative tribunals, and domestic
tribunals like Bar Council, Medical Council, university, or club, are
expressly outside the purview of civil courts.11 However, if the statutory
remedy is inadequate, and not all questions can be resolved by a special
tribunal, civil court jurisdiction remains open. Similarly, when a court with
limited authority incidentally addresses an issue, it doesn't necessarily
exclude the jurisdiction of a civil court for final adjudication12
II. Suits impliedly barred- A lawsuit is considered impliedly barred when
it's prohibited by established legal principles. When a statute provides a
specific remedy, it limits the individual seeking relief to the method
prescribed by that statute. When an act imposes an obligation and dictates

7
Umrao Singh v. Bhagwati Singh, AIR 1956 SC 15; Mohd. Mahmood v. Tikam Das, AIR 1966 SC 210; Bata
Shoe Co. Ltd. V. City of Jabalpur Corpn., (1977) 2 SCC 472
For instance, S.170 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 reads:
“Jurisdiction of civil courts barred.—No civil court shall have jurisdiction to question the legality of any
action taken or of any decision given by the returning officer or by any other person appointed under this Act
in connection with an election.”
8
State of Vindhya Pradesh v. Moradhwaj Singh, AIR 1960 SC 796
9
Abdul Waheed Khan v. Bhawani, AIR 1966 SC 1718
10
Bharat Kala Bhandar (P) Ltd. V. Municipal Committee, Dhamangaon, AIR 1966 SC 249; Dhulabhai v.
State of M.P., AIR 1969 SC 78
11
State of T.N. v. Ramalinga Samigal Madam, (1985) 4 SCC 10
12
LIC v. India Automobiles & Co. (1990) 4 SCC 286

14
 the manner of its fulfillment, that obligation must be enforced according to
that specific procedure. Additionally, certain civil suits are ineligible for
consideration by a civil court due to public policy considerations. This
principle is rooted in the idea that courts should avoid matters detrimental
to the public good.
Consequently, no legal action can be pursued for recovering expenses
incurred in criminal prosecutions, enforcing a contract that violates Section
23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, or against a judge for actions carried
out in the performance of their official duties. Similarly, political matters
fall under the jurisdiction of public administrative law and are beyond the
scope of civil courts. Civil courts lack authority to settle disputes of a
political nature.

3. Exclusion of Jurisdiction: Limitations

A litigation having a grievance of a civil nature has, independent of any statute, a right to
institute a suit in a civil court unless its cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.
The exclusion of the jurisdiction of a civil court is not to be readily inferred and such
exclusion must be clear. Again, even when the jurisdiction of a civil court is barred, either
expressly or by necessary implication, it cannot be said that the jurisdiction is altogether
excluded. A court has jurisdiction to examine whether the provisions of the act and the rules
made thereunder have or have not been complied with, or the order is contrary to law,
malafide, ultra vires, perverse, arbitrary,
‘purported’, violative of the principles of natural justice, or is based on ‘no evidence’ and
so on. In all these cases, the order cannot be said to be under the act but is de hors the act
and the jurisdiction of a civil court is not ousted.
In the leading decision of Secretary of State v. Mask& Co.,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

15
also 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.”

It is respectfully submitted that the following observations of Subba Rao, J.(as he then
was) in the leading case of Radha Kishan v. Ludhiyana
Municipality lay down the correct legal position regarding jurisdiction of civil courts and
require to be produced:

“under section 9 of the civil procedure code the court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits
of civil nature excepting suits of which cognizance is either expressly or impliedly
barred.Therefore, expressly or by necessary implication can bar the jurisdiction of civil
courts in respect of a particular matter. The mere conferment of special jurisdiction on a
tribunal in respect of the said matter does not in itself exclude the jurisdiction of civil
courts. The statute may specifically provide for ousting the jurisdiction of civil courts; even
if there was no such specific exclusion, if it creates liability not existing before and gives a
special and particular remedy for the aggrieved party, the remedy provided by it must be
followed. The same principle would apply if the statute had provided for the particular
forum in which the remedy could be had. Even in such cases, the civil court’s jurisdiction
is not completely ousted. A suit in a civil court will always lie to question the order of a
tribunal created by statute, even if its order is, expressly or by necessary implication, made
final, if the said tribunal abuses its power or does not act under the act but in violation of
its provisions."

4. Exclusion of Jurisdiction of Civil Courts: Principles

From the above discussion it is clear that the jurisdiction of civil courts is all- embracing
except to the extent it is excluded by law or by clear intendment arising from such law.In
the classic decision of Dhulabhai v. State of M.P.,after considering a number of cases,
Hidyatullah, C.J. summarized the following principles relating to the exclusion of
jurisdiction of civil courts:

16
a) Where a statute gives finality to orders of special tribunals, the civil courts 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 a provision, however, does not exclude those cases where the
provisions of a particular act have not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not
acted in conformity with fundamental principles of judicial procedure.

b)Where there is an express bar of jurisdiction of a court, an examination of the scheme of

a particular act to find the adequate or sufficiency of the remedies provided may be relevant
but this is not decisive for sustaining the jurisdiction of a civil court. Where there is no
express exclusion, the examination of the remedies and the scheme of a particular act to
find out the intendment becomes necessary and the result of the inquiry may be decisive.
In the latter case, it is necessary to see if a statute creates a special right or a liability and
provides for the determination of the right or liability and further lays down that all
questions about the said right and liability shall be determined by tribunals so constituted,
and whether remedies normally associated with actions in civil courts are prescribed by the
said statute or not.

c) challenge to the provisions of a particular act as ultra vires cannot be brought before
tribunals constituted under that act. Even the high court cannot go into that question on a
revision or reference from decisions of tribunals.

d) When a provision is already declared unconstitutional or the constitutionality of any

provisions is to be challenged, a suit is open. A writ of certiorari may include a direction
for refund if the claim is clearly within the time prescribed by the limitation act but it is not
a compulsory remedy to replace a suit.

e) Where the particular act contains no machinery for refund of tax collected in excess of
constitutional limits or is illegally collected, a suit lies.

f)Questions of the correctness of an assessment, apart from its constitutionality, are for the
decision of the authorized and a civil suit does not lie if the orders of the authorities are
declared to be final or there is an express prohibition in a particular act. In either case, the
scheme of a particular act must be examined because it is a relevant enquiry.

17
g)An exclusion of jurisdiction of a civil court is not readily to be inferred unless the
conditions above set down apply.The above principles enunciated are relevant in deciding
the correctness or otherwise of assessment orders made under taxing statutes.

In Premier Automobiles v. K.S. Wadke, the Supreme court laid down the following
principles as applicable to the jurisdiction of a civil court in relation to industrial disputes:

h) If a dispute is not an industrial dispute, nor does it relate to enforcement of any other
right under the act, the remedy lies only in a civil court.

i)If a dispute is an industrial dispute arising out of a right or liability under the general or
common law and not under the act, the jurisdiction of a civil court is alternative, leaving it
to the election of a suitor or person concerned to choose his remedy for the relief which is
competent to be granted in a particular remedy.

j) If an industrial dispute relates to the enforcement of a right or an obligation created under

the act, then the only remedy available to suitor is to get adjudication under the act.

k)If the right which is sought to be enforced is a right created under the act such as chapter
V-A, then the remedy for its enforcement is either section 33-C or the raising of an
industrial dispute, as the case may be.

5. General Principles

From various decisions of the Supreme Court, the following general principles relating to
jurisdiction of a civil court emerge:

a) A civil court is empowered to handle all civil suits unless their jurisdiction is explicitly
or implicitly prohibited.

b) Consent cannot grant or remove a court's jurisdiction.

18
c) A judgment issued by a court without proper jurisdiction is void and can be contested at
any stage of the proceedings, in execution, or even in separate legal actions.

d) A distinction exists between the absence of jurisdiction and the improper exercise of
jurisdiction.

e) Every court possesses inherent authority to determine its own jurisdiction.

f) A court's jurisdiction is determined by the claims made in a complaint and not by the
defenses presented in a written statement.

g) When establishing a court's jurisdiction, the essence of the matter takes precedence over
its formal presentation.

h) The benefit of the doubt should favor the jurisdiction of a civil court.

i) Any statute limiting a court's jurisdiction must be interpreted strictly.

j) The burden of proving the exclusion of a court's jurisdiction rests with the party making
the claim.

k) Even in cases where a civil court's jurisdiction is limited, it can still assess compliance
with the provisions of an act or whether an order was issued in violation of the law's
provisions.

19
 CONCLUSION

The term "court jurisdiction" refers to the court's legal authority to hear, try, and resolve a case.
Court jurisdiction is a crucial factor in determining the appropriate venue for filing lawsuits. A
lawsuit must be brought before a court that has the legal power to hear and adjudicate it.
Selecting the wrong court can have serious consequences for the lawsuit. Civil court
jurisdiction comes in various forms, including territorial jurisdiction, pecuniary jurisdiction,
jurisdiction over the subject matter, and original and appellate jurisdiction. A court cannot
exceed its designated jurisdiction. When a court possesses the authority to try and decide a
case, it is considered to have jurisdiction over that matter. A lawsuit cannot be brought before
a court that lacks the necessary jurisdiction to handle the subject matter. Therefore, a court
decree issued without proper jurisdiction is invalid. The determination of whether the court
where a lawsuit is filed has jurisdiction to hear and decide it is made by the same court.
Jurisdiction is a substantial basis for defense. By challenging jurisdiction, the defendant
questions the suit's very viability.

However, any jurisdictional objections must be raised by the defendant at the earliest
opportunity. When deciding jurisdiction, the court begins with the presumption that jurisdiction
exists, and the burden of proving otherwise falls on the party contesting it. Lastly, jurisdiction
can be either explicitly or implicitly barred. An explicit bar occurs when legislation expressly
prohibits it. An implied bar arises when a statute establishes a particular right or liability and
creates specialized tribunals for its determination. The lawsuit must be filed in the court with
the lowest level of competence to handle it (Section 15).

20