​ ection 9 of the “Civil Procedure Code”

S
explicates the jurisdiction of civil
courts in India. The Section reads
“subject to provisions herein
contained courts shall have the
jurisdiction to adjudicate on all suits
of a civil nature barring those the
cognizance of which are impliedly or
expressly barred.” Two conditions
need to be satisfied for a civil court to
exert jurisdiction on a suit:

1. “The suit must be civil

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

A civil suit has not been defined in

any Act. Any suit of a non-criminal
nature which ratifies or determines
civil rights can be termed as a civil
suit. The Supreme Court enunciated
on the definition of a civil proceeding
in Kehar Sinha Nihal Singh v.
Custodian General as an approbation
of private rights to corporations or
human beings. The reward or
retrieval of private property is the
objective of a civil action. A civil
action may, in other words, be defined
as “a legal proceeding between two
parties for the redressal,
determination or implementation of
private rights.”

The private rights and obligations of

citizens are covered under the
expression “suit of civil nature.” A
civil suit shall not adjudicate on a
political or religious question.
However, if the moot question in a
suit relates to property and certain
ancillary questions involving caste or
religion a decision relating to caste or
religious rites shall not terminate the
suit from being one of civil nature.
The courts have the jurisdiction to
decide on such cases, to adjudicate on
the more important question which is
civil.
Each phrase of the doctrine
approbates a duty of the Apex Court to
apply its jurisdiction for the purpose
of allocation of rights. If the
requirements under Section 9 are
satisfied for a particular case, no court
can deny examining the matter in
concern. The dictionary definition of
the word civil relates it to a citizen or
an individual. The inherent qualities
of a person/thing can be termed as
his/her “nature.” The phrase “civil
nature” is more pervasive than the
phrase “civil proceeding.” The
Supreme Court in PMA Metropolitan
v. M.M Marthoma, enunciated the
meaning of the term jurisdiction. The
court observed, “the expensive nature
of the section is demonstrated by the
use of phraseology both positive and
negative, the language used is simple
but explicit and clear […]. It is
structured based on a civilised
jurisprudence that the absence of
machinery for enforcement of rights
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 civil nature
unless expressly or impliedly barred.”
Phrases including words and
expressions obligate the court to
invoke its jurisdiction for the purpose
of application of rights. Further
mandated by the usage of the word
“shall.” So long a suit pertains to the
nature mentioned in the section, the
same cannot be refused by the court.
The expression “all suits of civil
nature” amplifies this duty. The above
contention was reaffirmed in the case
of Shankar Narayanan v. K. Sreedevi,
wherein the Apex Court observed:
“Civil Court has primary jurisdiction
in all types of civil matters as per
Section 9 of CPC unless the action is
expressly or impliedly barred.” The
decision implied that a civil court’s
jurisdiction can be ousted by the
legislature by amending or adding a
provision to the Act in itself. The court
was instructed in the case of Shri
Panch Nagar v. Purushottam Das, if
any specific terms are lacking from
any statute, to find an implied
dismissal of the civil courts’
jurisdiction enumerated in any
design, plan, or suitable provisions of
the statute.

Therefore, a suit which concerns a

question of property is a suit of civil
nature, irrespective of whether such
suits might include a question
pertaining to religious ceremonies or
rituals and the complainant bears the
authority to commence a civil suit
unless its jurisdiction is “expressly or
impliedly” forbidden by the court. The
burden to prove the jurisdiction of the
court is on the parties which try to
dismiss it. The statute dismissing the
court’s jurisdiction must be well
explained and established. The court
is supposed to refer to the theory of
jurisdiction in case there is any doubt
concerning the same. While a civil
court is authorised to decide on a suit
concerning its jurisdiction, in
consequence, however, it may be
established that the court lacks the
jurisdiction to adjudicate the case.

Jurisdiction

A court is said to have jurisdiction for

the suit when it not only has the
power to try the suit but can also pass
orders or decrees in relation to it.

In the year 1928, the Calcutta High

Court attempted to explain the
meaning of the term jurisdiction in
the case of Hriday Nath Roy v. Akhil
Chandra Roy, the court stated:
“jurisdiction is the power of the court
to hear and determine a cause, to
adjudicate and exercise judicial
powers in relation to it.” It went
further and demarcated three
different categories of jurisdictions:

Subject matter jurisdiction – Subject

matter implies the main or the
fundamental matter of a particular
nature which is under question.
Subject matter jurisdiction essentially
states whether the court has the
authority to try the subject matter in
question. It primarily specifies
whether the courts are allowed to try
matters of a certain nature. If not,
then the courts cannot try that
particular case.
Pecuniary jurisdiction – Pecuniary
implies “related to capital”. It means
of a certain monetary value. A court
can have certain financial limitations
which the courts should adhere to and
beyond which the courts cannot try
the matter. The primary aim of setting
a pecuniary jurisdiction is to preclude
the higher courts from getting
burdened and at the same time extend
help to the parties.
Territorial jurisdiction – Also known
as local jurisdiction, territorial
jurisdiction lays down the
geographical limits of a court’s
authority. It ensures that such limits of
courts are clarified clearly and
specifically. No court is authorized to
try matters which exist beyond their
respective territorial limit.
Apart from the above three
classifications, jurisdictions are also
divided on the basis of “original”, and
“appellate jurisdiction” or “exclusive”
and “concurrent jurisdiction.”
Additionally, the jurisdiction of the
court is not decided on the arguments
of the defense but on the basis of the
allegations made in the complaint. An
order passed by a court lacking
jurisdiction is nullified and is
unenforceable by law. When it comes
to civil courts they are governed by
the “Code of Civil Procedure 1908”,
which is procedural law. The
jurisdiction of the civil courts is dealt
with under Section 9 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908.

Suits of civil nature

The term civil denotes rights and

“remedies sought by action”. It relates
to a suit that is not criminal in nature
and concerns the rights of and wrongs
done to individuals regarded as
private persons. A cursory glance at
Section 9 clarifies that all civil courts,
subject to the provisions of the act,
have the jurisdiction to try all suits of
civil nature “except the suit of which
cognizance is either expressly or
impliedly barred.” Therefore,
essentially any suit of civil nature can
be tried by the court unless it is either
expressly or impliedly barred. This
implies that a court cannot try any
matter which is not of civil nature. In
the landmark case, Shankar Narayan
Potti v. K Sreedevi, the Apex Court
held that ”it is obvious that in all type
of civil dispute civil courts have
inherited jurisdiction as per Section 9
of the CPC unless a part of Jurisdiction
is carved out from such jurisdiction,
expressly or by necessary implication
by any statutory provision conferred
on any other tribunal or authority.”

Expressly or impliedly barred

Suits expressly barred – A suit barred

by an enactment for the time being in
force is said to be expressly barred. A
competent legislature can bar
jurisdiction of civil courts with respect
to a particular class of suits of a civil
nature, provided that, in doing so, it
keeps itself within the field of
legislation conferred on it and does
not contravene any provision of the
Constitution. Hence, a suit is said to
expressly barred when it is prohibited
by the statute for the time being in
force.
Suits impliedly barred – A suit barred
by general principles of law is said to
be impliedly barred. Where the
statute provides a specific remedy, it
deprives the person of a remedy of
any other form. Similarly, even civil
suits are barred from the cognizance
of a civil court on the ground of public
policy. A suit is said to be impliedly
barred when it is said to be excluded
by general principles of law. When a
specific remedy is given by statute, it,
therefore, denies a person who
requires a remedy of any different
form than is given by statute.”

Relevant rights under this section

The Section covers within its ambit

three important rights. First is the
right to property. This right implies
and includes “movable, immovable,
intellectual, inheritable property and
property that arise out of any
contract, agreement, litigation, or out
of any other civil rights.” However, if
such question in a suit is of a civil
nature (right to property or to an
office) and it so happens that the
adjudication incidentally involves an
element that involves a dispute
relating to caste or to religious rites
and ceremonies, the suit does not
immediately cease to be of a civil
nature.

Limitations concerning the exclusion of

jurisdiction

Common assumption dictates, civil

courts have the jurisdiction to try any
suit and the prosecution has the
power to initiate a suit of civil nature
in a civil court independent of any
statute unless expressly or impliedly
barred. However, the above-stated
rule is not without exceptions. A court
has the jurisdiction to adjudicate
whether the provisions of the act and
rules enumerated thereunder have or
have not been complied with if the
order is in contradiction to the law,
mala fide, ultra vires, perverse,
arbitrary, ‘purported’, or is in
contradiction to the principles of
natural justice, is based on “no
evidence” rule and so forth. The Privy
Council in Secretary of State v. Mask
and Co., commented it is the
established law that jurisdiction of
civil courts is not supposed to be
expressly inferred but should have
been impliedly barred or explicitly
expressed by any statute. The court
further enunciated that civil courts
have the jurisdiction to examine cases
which may not have observed the
fundamental principles of the judicial
process.
“Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code”
concerns the jurisdiction of a civil
court to entertain a cause. The section
enumerates, subject to the provisions
of Section 10, 11, 12, 13 47, 66, 83, 84,
91, 9(115) civil courts have an
“inherent” jurisdiction to entertain
any suit unless its cognizance is
expressly or impliedly barred by
requisite implications in the
respective statute. The civil court is
entitled to decide on a suit concerning
its jurisdiction, however, in
consequence, it may turn out the court
does not have any jurisdiction over
the matter. Civil courts have the
jurisdiction to decide on whether
tribunal, quasi-judicial bodies, or
statutory authorities operate within
its jurisdiction.