Sec9- courts to try all suits unless barred

1. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts: Section 9 of the CPC grants civil courts the jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil
nature unless they are expressly or impliedly barred by law.
2. Conditions for Civil Court Jurisdiction:

3. The suit must be of a civil nature (concerning private rights, property, contracts, etc.).

4. The suit’s cognizance should not be expressly or impliedly barred by any statute.

5. Definition of a Civil Suit: Although not defined in the CPC, a civil suit is generally understood as a legal
proceeding that involves private disputes between individuals or organizations. It focuses on the
enforcement or protection of civil rights, property, or obligations.
6. Civil vs. Non-Civil Suits: Civil suits pertain to private legal rights, whereas non-civil suits might include
criminal, political, or purely religious disputes. However, if a case includes issues of civil rights (like
property) intertwined with religious matters, it may still be considered a civil suit.
7. Implied or Express Bar on Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction can be barred by specific laws. The courts must analyze
whether any statute expressly or impliedly prohibits civil courts from hearing certain disputes. If there is
any ambiguity, civil courts generally assume jurisdiction.
8. Broad Interpretation of “Civil Nature”: The term "civil nature" is broadly interpreted, covering not only
civil proceedings but all suits concerning private rights, unless a specific statute bars them.
9. Burden of Proof: The burden of proving that a civil court's jurisdiction is barred lies on the party asserting
the bar.
Case-
Kehar Singh Nihal Singh v. Custodian General
 Issue: What is a "civil proceeding"?
 Decision: The court explained that a civil proceeding is any legal case where someone is
trying to protect or enforce their private rights. For example, if someone is trying to
recover property or enforce a contract, it is a civil case. The focus here is on resolving
disputes between private individuals, not criminal matters.
Shankar Narayanan v. K. Sreedevi
 Issue: Can civil courts refuse to hear civil disputes?
 Decision: The Supreme Court ruled that civil courts are the default option for hearing civil
disputes. They can't refuse to hear such cases unless a specific law says they don’t have the
authority. In other words, civil courts generally have the first right to decide civil matters
unless a law clearly removes this power.

1. Jurisdiction:

In legal terms, jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court to hear and decide a case. A court must have
the power to both hear the suit and issue a decision or order. Jurisdiction is fundamental because if a
court doesn’t have it, the entire case is void.

In the case Hriday Nath Roy v. Akhil Chandra Roy (1928), the Calcutta High Court divided jurisdiction into
three main types:

 Subject Matter Jurisdiction: This is the authority of a court to hear cases of a specific type, like property
disputes or contract issues. If a case doesn’t fit within this category, the court cannot hear it.
 Pecuniary Jurisdiction: This relates to the monetary value involved in the case. Courts have limits on the
amounts they can handle, preventing lower courts from taking on high-value cases and overloading
higher courts with smaller claims.

 Territorial Jurisdiction: This concerns the geographic boundaries within which a court can exercise its
authority. A court in one state or district can’t hear a case about property in another state, for example.

Other forms of jurisdiction include:

 Original Jurisdiction: The authority to hear a case for the first time.

 Appellate Jurisdiction: The authority to review the decision of a lower court.

2. Suits of Civil Nature:

A civil suit involves disputes about private rights, such as property, contracts, or personal disputes (not
crimes). According to Section 9 of the CPC, civil courts can hear any dispute of a civil nature unless a law
explicitly or implicitly bars the court from doing so.

In the case Shankar Narayan Potti v. K. Sreedevi, the Supreme Court held that civil courts have general
authority over all types of civil disputes unless a statute specifically removes some of that authority.

3. Expressly or Impliedly Barred Suits:

Sometimes, laws prevent civil courts from hearing certain cases. This can be done:

 Expressly: When a law directly says civil courts cannot hear a specific type of case. For example, special
tribunals may handle certain disputes instead of regular civil courts.

 Impliedly: When a law indirectly suggests that civil courts are excluded. For instance, if a law provides a
specific remedy through another authority, civil courts cannot interfere.

In Raja Ram Kumar Bhargava v. Union of India, the Supreme Court laid down principles for determining
when a court’s jurisdiction is impliedly excluded:

 If a right is created by a statute and the statute provides a mechanism to enforce that right, civil courts
generally cannot step in.

 The statute must make it clear that the tribunal or authority’s decision is final.

4. Civil Rights under Section 9:

The section protects three main rights:

 Right to Property: This covers disputes over movable and immovable property, intellectual property, and
more.

 Right to Office: This includes the right to acquire and hold a position (for example, a job or religious role).

 Right to Religion: Religious disputes that involve civil matters, like property or office, can also be heard by
civil courts.

5. Analysis of Section 9:

Section 9 assumes that civil courts have the authority to hear all civil cases unless this authority is clearly
excluded. Even if someone challenges the court’s jurisdiction, it must be proven with solid legal grounds.
 The court may continue hearing a case if statutory bodies or tribunals have acted outside their
jurisdiction.

Key cases like Dhulabhai v. State of M.P. provide principles for excluding the jurisdiction of civil courts. For
example:

 If a law creates a special right and provides a specific remedy, the remedy must be followed.

 Civil courts can still intervene if tribunals or other authorities violate the law or act unfairly.

Section 10- stay of suit-

Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) embodies the doctrine of Res Sub Judice, a Latin maxim
meaning "under judgment." It prevents courts from trying suits with the same subject matter and between
the same parties that are already pending in another competent court. The aim is to avoid parallel litigation,
which could lead to conflicting judgments.

Provisions of Section 10

Section 10 mandates that:

1. No court shall proceed with the trial of a suit in which the matter in issue is directly and
substantially the same as in a previously instituted suit.

2. The suits must be between the same parties or their legal representatives.

3. The court where the first suit is pending must have jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed in
the subsequent suit.

4. Courts can stay proceedings in the later suit but cannot dismiss it.

Explanation: The pendency of a suit in a foreign court does not bar Indian courts from trying a suit founded on
the same cause of action.

Objective of Section 10

The primary objective is to:

 Prevent waste of judicial time and resources.

 Avoid inconsistent verdicts by preventing multiple courts from deciding the same issue
simultaneously.

 Protect parties from the burden of defending identical suits in different forums.

Conditions for Applicability

For Section 10 to apply:

1. Two suits must be involved—one previously instituted and the other subsequently instituted.

2. The matter in issue must be directly and substantially the same in both suits.

3. Both suits must involve the same parties or their representatives, litigating under the same
title.
 4. The court where the previous suit is pending must have jurisdiction to grant the relief in the
subsequent suit.

Key Points

 Bars Trial: Section 10 only prohibits the trial of a subsequent suit, not its institution.

 Mandatory Stay: The court must stay proceedings in the subsequent suit but cannot dismiss
it.

 No Inherent Powers: When Section 10 applies, the court cannot use its inherent powers
under Section 151 CPC to override its provisions.

Case Laws

1. Indian Bank v. Maharashtra State Co-operative Marketing Fed. Ltd. (1998): The Supreme
Court clarified that Section 10 applies to the trial of a suit and not its institution.

2. Ragho Prasad Gupta v. Shri Krishna Poddar (1969): The Supreme Court held that Section 10
does not apply if the matter in issue in the subsequent suit is different from that of the
previously instituted suit.

Sec-11 Res judicata-

Introduction

 Res means “subject matter” and judicata means “adjudged” or decided and together it
means “a matter adjudged”.

 Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) embodies the doctrine of Res Judicata or
the rule of conclusiveness of a judgment.

 It enacts that once a matter is finally decided by a competent court, no party can be
permitted to reopen it in a subsequent litigation.

 It serves to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and to protect parties from being vexed twice
for the same cause.

Object

 The object of the principle of res judicata can be traced by three judicial maxims:

o Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa: It means no man should be vexed
twice for the same cause.

o Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium: This maxim means it is in the interest of the
state that there should be an end to a litigation.

o Res judicata pro veritate occipitur: a judicial decision must be accepted as correct.

Essential Elements

 Matter in issue must be same: To apply the principle of Res Judicata, the matter in the
subsequent suit must be directly and substantially same in the former suit.
  Same Parties: The former suit must have been between the same parties, or between
parties under whom they or any of them claim.

 Same Title: The parties must be litigating under the same title in both the former and
subsequent suits.

 Competent Jurisdiction: The court that decided the former suit must have had jurisdiction to
try the subsequent suit or the suit in which the issue has been raised.

 Heard and Finally Decided: The matter in issue must have been heard and finally decided by
the former court.

Extent and Applicability

 The doctrine of res judicata applies to civil suits, execution proceedings, taxation matters,
industrial adjudication, administrative orders, interim orders, etc.

 The doctrine of res judicata codified in Section 11 of CPC is not exhaustive.

Former Suit: Explanation I

 Explanation I to Section 11 of CPC provides that the expression “former suit” shall denote a
suit which has been decided prior to the suit in question whether it was instituted prior
thereto.

 It is not the date on which the suit is filed that matters but the date on which the suit is
decided.

 Even if a suit was filed later, it will be a former suit within the meaning of explanation I if it
has been decided earlier.

 A "former suit" refers to any suit that has been decided before the current suit, even if the
"former" suit was filed later than the current suit.

 Example: If Suit A is decided before Suit B, even if Suit B was filed earlier, Suit A is
considered the "former suit."

Explanation II

 To determine whether a court is competent (has the authority) to hear a case, we ignore
whether there is a right to appeal from that court’s decision.

 Example: Even if a higher court can hear an appeal from a lower court’s decision, we only
look at whether the lower court had the authority to decide the issue in the first place.

Explanation III

 For the matter to count as "directly and substantially in issue," it must have been brought up
in the former suit by one party and either denied or admitted by the other party.

 Example: If in a previous case, one party claimed ownership of a property and the other
denied it, the ownership issue was directly in dispute.
Constructive Res Judicata: Explanation IV

 The rule of constructive Res Judicata engrafted in Explanation IV to Section 11 of the CPC.

 It is aimed at preventing not only the relitigating of issues that were decided in a previous
suit but also those issues that could have been raised and decided but were not.

 It is opposed to public policies on which the principle of res judicata is based.

 Any matter that could have been used as a reason to attack or defend in the first case, but
wasn’t, is still considered to have been in issue.

 Example: If you could have brought up an argument in the first suit but didn’t, you cannot
raise it in a later suit. It's assumed to have been part of the first case

Explanation V

 If a party asks for relief in the plaint (like compensation), and the court doesn’t specifically
grant it in its judgment, it’s assumed that the court has refused that relief.

 Example: If you asked for damages and the court didn’t mention it in the final decision, it’s
considered as if the court decided not to award those damages.

Representative Suit: Explanation VI

 Explanation VI to Section 11 of the CPC states that where bona fide litigation is initiated in
respect of a common private or a public right, the decision of such litigation would operate
as res judicata on all persons having an interest in that right.

 If people are fighting bona fide (in good faith) for a public or common right (like a right to
use a shared road), then everyone who has an interest in that right is considered to be
claiming through those who are actually litigating the case.
 Example: If a group of people fights for the right to access a park, they are doing it on behalf
of everyone who wants to use that park.
 The following conditions must be satisfied before a decision may operate as res judicata
under explanation VI:

o There must be a right claimed by one or more persons in common for themselves
and others not expressly named in the suit.

o The litigation must have been conducted bonafide and on behalf of all parties
interested.

o If the suit is under Order I Rule 8 of CPC, all conditions laid down therein must have
been strictly complied with.

Explanation VII

 These rules about Res Judicata also apply to execution proceedings (i.e., trying to enforce a court's
decision). Terms like "suit" and "issue" in this section also refer to execution proceedings.

 Example: If there was an issue decided during the enforcement of a decree, that issue cannot be
reopened in a new enforcement attempt.
 Explanation VIII

 If an issue was heard and decided by a court that had limited jurisdiction (a lower or
specialized court), that decision will still act as Res Judicata in a later case, even if the lower
court couldn't have heard the new suit.

 Example: If a labor court decides a specific issue (like unpaid wages), and the same issue
arises in a civil suit, the decision of the labor court will prevent the same issue from being
tried again.

Exceptions to Res Judicata

 Writ of Habeas Corpus: The principle of Res Judicata does not apply to the writ of Habeas
Corpus.

 Fraud or Collusion: If the original judgment was obtained through fraud or collusion, it may
not be binding in subsequent litigation.

 Substantial changes in evidence: If some new evidence emerges that could not have been
discovered with due diligence during the prior suit, then the Court may allow the issue to be
re-litigated.

 Incompetent Jurisdiction of Court: If the court that rendered the original judgment lacked
proper jurisdiction, the decision may not have a binding effect.

Case laws

 Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1961):

o The Supreme Court held that the rule of res judicata applies also to a petition filed
under article 32 of the constitution.

 State of U.P v. Nawab Hussain (1977):

o The Supreme Court held that the principle underlying explanation IV is that where
the parties have had an opportunity of controverting a matter that should be taken
to be the same thing as if the matter had been controverted and decided.

 Gulam Abbas v. State of U.P (1981)

o The Supreme court held that the doctrine of res judicata codified under Section 11 of
CPC is not exhaustive.

Section 12- Bar to Further suit-

This rule means that if a plaintiff is prevented by legal rules from filing another lawsuit about a
particular cause of action (the reason or issue behind the case), they cannot file the same lawsuit
again in any court that follows the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

In short, once a legal rule stops you from filing a case again about the same issue, you can't file it in
another court either.

Section 13- when foreign judgement not conclusive-

A foreign judgment (a decision made by a court outside of India) is considered final and binding for
cases between the same parties, except in the following situations:

1. Lack of Jurisdiction: If the foreign court didn’t have the proper authority to give the
judgment.

2. Not Decided on Merits: If the judgment wasn’t based on the actual facts and evidence of the
case.

3. Wrong Interpretation of Law: If the decision is based on a misunderstanding of international

law or ignores Indian law when it should apply.

4. Violation of Natural Justice: If the process was unfair or biased.

5. Fraud: If the judgment was obtained through deceit or dishonesty.

6. Illegal Claims: If the judgment supports a claim that goes against Indian law.

In simple terms, a foreign judgment won’t be accepted in India if any of these issues are present.

n TransAsia Private Capital Ltd v. Gaurav Dhawan (2023), the Delhi High Court held that if a foreign
decree is passed after the defendant was properly served but didn’t appear, it can't be called ex
parte. The court distinguished between ex parte decrees based on evidence, which are judgments on
merits, and those based solely on the defendant's non-appearance, which are not considered on
merits. This aligns with the Supreme Court’s ruling in International Woollen Mills v. Standard Wool
(2001).

Section 14- presumption as to foreign judgement

This provision states that when a certified copy of a foreign judgment is presented in court, it is
assumed that the judgment was made by a court that had the authority to do so. However, this
assumption can be challenged and overturned if evidence shows that the court did not have proper
jurisdiction.

PLACE OF SUING

Section15- Court in which suits to be instituted

his provision states that any legal suit must be filed in the court that has the lowest level of authority
or grade that is capable of handling the case. Essentially, plaintiffs should start their lawsuits in the
least formal or lower-level court that has the power to decide the matter.

Section 16- suits to be instituted where subject matter situate-

1. Types of Suits: The section specifies different kinds of suits that must be filed based on the
location of the property:

o Recovery of Immovable Property: This includes lawsuits for recovering land or buildings,
whether or not they involve rent or profits.

o Partition of Immovable Property: Suits related to dividing property among co-owners.

o Foreclosure, Sale, or Redemption: Related to mortgage properties.

o Determination of Rights: Suits to clarify rights or interests in immovable property.

 o Compensation for Wrong: Suits seeking compensation for damages to immovable
property.

o Recovery of Movable Property: This refers to suits concerning movable property that is
currently being held or attached.

2. Jurisdiction: Such suits must be filed in the court that has jurisdiction over the area where the
property is located.

3. Special Provision: If the suit is about obtaining relief or compensation for wrong done to
immovable property that the defendant holds, it can be filed in one of two places:

o In the court where the property is located, or

o In the court where the defendant lives or does business, as long as the relief sought can
be achieved through the defendant's personal compliance.

4. Definition of Property: The term "property" in this section refers to property located in India.

This provision ensures that legal disputes related to property are handled in the appropriate local
courts based on the property’s location, promoting efficiency and relevance in legal proceedings.

SECTION 17- Suits for immovable property situate within jurisdiction of different court-

This provision deals with situations where a lawsuit involves immovable property that is located
within the jurisdiction of multiple courts. Here’s a simplified explanation:

1. Multiple Jurisdictions: If a lawsuit seeks relief or compensation for a wrong related to

immovable property that is situated in different jurisdictions (i.e., areas covered by different
courts), the plaintiff has options on where to file the suit.

2. Filing Options: The suit can be filed in any court that has jurisdiction over any part of the
property. This means if part of the property is located in one court's jurisdiction and another
part is in a different court's jurisdiction, the plaintiff can choose either court to file the suit.

3. Value of the Claim: The provision specifies that the court in which the suit is filed must have
the authority to handle the total value of the claim. This means that the claim's overall value
must be within the monetary limits that the chosen court can adjudicate.

Section 18. Place of Institution of suit where local limits of jurisdiction of Courts are uncertain.—

1. Uncertain Jurisdiction: If it is unclear which court has jurisdiction over a piece of immovable
property—meaning two or more courts might be considered the proper venue—any one of
those courts can take action.
2. Court's Authority: The court must first determine that there is a legitimate reason for this
uncertainty. If so, it can officially record a statement acknowledging the uncertainty.
3. Proceeding with the Case: Once this statement is made, the court can proceed with the
lawsuit related to the property. Its decisions will have the same legal effect as if the property
were clearly within its jurisdiction.
4. Competency of the Court: The court must still have the legal authority (jurisdiction) to
handle the specific type of case and the value of the claim being made.
5. Objection in Higher Courts: If no such statement has been recorded and an objection is
raised in a higher court (like an Appellate or Revisional Court) claiming that a lower court
 made a ruling without proper jurisdiction, the higher court will only consider this objection
if:

6. At the time the suit was filed, there was no reasonable basis for the uncertainty about which
court should have jurisdiction.

7. The lack of proper jurisdiction resulted in a failure of justice.

SECTION 19-SUIT FOR COMPENSATION FOR WRONGS TO PERSON OR MOVABLES-

1. Venue for Compensation Suits: If a wrong (like an injury or damage to property) occurs in
the local jurisdiction of one court, and the defendant (the person being sued) lives, runs a
business, or works for gain in the local jurisdiction of another court, the plaintiff (the person
bringing the lawsuit) has a choice about where to file the suit.

2. Choice of Court: The plaintiff can choose to file the lawsuit in either court:

o Where the Wrong Occurred: The court in the location where the wrong was done
(where the incident took place).

o Where the Defendant Resides: The court in the location where the defendant lives
or works.

Illustrations:

 Example 1: If A, who lives in Delhi, physically assaults B in Calcutta, B can sue A in either
Calcutta (where the assault occurred) or in Delhi (where A lives).

 Example 2: If A, residing in Delhi, publishes defamatory statements about B in Calcutta, B can

sue A in either Calcutta (where the defamatory act occurred) or in Delhi (where A lives).

SECTION 20 -OTHER SUITS TO BE INSTITUTED WHERE DEFENDEND RESIDES OR CAUSE OF ACTION ARISE-
Venue for Other Suits:

A suit should be filed in a court that is within the local jurisdiction of:

1. Defendant's Residence:

o (a) If there is one defendant, the suit can be filed where the defendant actually lives,
conducts business, or works for gain.

o (b) If there are multiple defendants, the suit can be filed where any one of the
defendants resides or conducts business, but this requires either permission from
the court or consent from the other defendants who do not reside there.

2. Cause of Action:

o (c) The suit can also be filed where the cause of action (the reason for the lawsuit)
arose, either wholly or partially.

Explanation:

 For corporations, they are considered to do business at their main office in India or at any
subordinate office related to the cause of action.

Illustrations:
  Example 1: If A, a trader in Calcutta, sells goods to B, who runs a business in Delhi, and
delivers those goods in Calcutta, A can sue B either in Calcutta (where the cause of action
arose) or in Delhi (where B does business).

 Example 2: If A lives in Simla, B in Calcutta, and C in Delhi, and they all meet in Benaras
where B and C give A a joint promissory note, A can sue both B and C in Benaras (where the
cause of action arose). A can also sue them in Calcutta (B's residence) or Delhi (C's
residence), but if B objects to the suit being filed in a court where he does not reside, A must
obtain permission from the court to proceed.

SECTION 21-Objections to Jurisdiction

1. Objections to Place of Suing:

 (1) Any objection related to where a suit is filed (place of suing) must be raised at the earliest
possible opportunity in the original court. If the issues have been settled, the objection
should be made before the settlement. Furthermore, the objection will only be considered if
it has resulted in a failure of justice.

2. Objections to Court Competence:

 (2) Any objection concerning the competence of a court based on its financial jurisdiction
(pecuniary limits) must also be raised at the earliest opportunity in the original court, and
the same failure of justice condition applies.

 (3) Similar rules apply for objections regarding the competence of an executing court
concerning its local limits. These objections must be raised at the earliest opportunity in that
executing court, along with the failure of justice condition.

SECTION 21 A-BAR ON SUIT TO SET ASIDE DECREE ON OBJECTION AS TO PLACE OF SUING-

Bar on Challenging Decree:

 21A: A party cannot file a new suit to challenge the validity of a decree from a previous suit
(between the same parties or those claiming under them) based on an objection to the place
where the previous suit was filed.

 Explanation: The term “former suit” refers to any suit that was decided before the suit
questioning the validity of the decree, regardless of whether it was filed first.

SECTION 22 POWER TO TRANSFER SUITS WHICH MAY BE INSTITUTED IN MORE THAN ONE COURT

1. Applicability: This rule applies when a lawsuit can be filed in one of two or more courts.
2. Defendant's Right: If a defendant wishes to transfer the case to another court, they must:

Provide notice to the other parties involved.

Make the application at the earliest possible opportunity, ideally before or at the time issues
are settled in the case.

3. Court's Role:

The court receiving the transfer application will consider any objections from other parties.

After reviewing the objections, the court will decide in which of the several competent
courts the lawsuit should continue.
SECTION 23-To what Court application lies

 Same Appellate Court:

 If the courts involved are all under the same appellate court, the transfer application should
be submitted to that appellate court.

 Different Appellate Courts, Same High Court:

 If the courts are subordinate to different appellate courts but fall under the same High Court,
the application should be made to that High Court.

 Different High Courts:

 If the courts are under different High Courts, the application must be submitted to the High
Court that has jurisdiction over the court where the original suit was filed.

SECTION 24. General power of transfer and withdrawal.—

 Transfer and Withdrawal Powers:

 Transfer: The High Court or District Court can transfer any suit, appeal, or proceeding
pending before it to any subordinate court that is competent to handle the case.

 Withdrawal: The court can also withdraw any case from a subordinate court for various
purposes, such as:

o Trying or disposing of the case itself.

o Transferring it to another competent subordinate court.

o Retransferring it back to the original court from which it was withdrawn.

 Proceeding after Transfer:

 The court that takes over the case can either retry it from the beginning or continue from the
point at which it was transferred or withdrawn, unless there are specific directions stating
otherwise.

 Definitions:

 Courts of Additional and Assistant Judges are considered subordinate to the District Court.

 The term “proceeding” includes actions for executing a decree or order.

 Court of Small Causes:

 If a suit is transferred from a Court of Small Causes, the court receiving the case will be
treated as a Court of Small Causes for that case.

 Transferring from Courts Without Jurisdiction:

 A suit or proceeding can be transferred from a court that lacks jurisdiction to hear it.

SECTION 25- POWER OF SC TO TRANSFER SUITS, ETC-

 Transfer Authority:
  The Supreme Court can transfer any suit, appeal, or proceeding from a High Court or civil
court in one state to a High Court or civil court in another state. This can happen at any stage
of the proceedings if the Supreme Court believes it is necessary for justice.

 Application Procedure:

 The party seeking the transfer must file a motion supported by an affidavit, which provides
evidence for the request.

 Handling Transferred Cases:

 The receiving court will either retry the case or continue from the point where it was
transferred, based on any special directions given in the transfer order.

 Compensation for Frivolous Applications:

 If the Supreme Court dismisses an application for transfer, it can order the applicant to pay
compensation (up to ₹2,000) to any opposing party if it finds the application to be frivolous
or vexatious.

 Applicable Law:

 The law that applies to the transferred case will be the same law that would have applied in
the original court where the case was first filed.