Download Jurisdiction of Civil Courts in India: A Comprehensive Guide to Civil Procedure Code and more Summaries Civil procedure in PDF only on Docsity!
Jurisdiction of Civil Courts in
India under the Civil Procedure
Code
Civil Procedure Code (India)
Jurisdiction
The District Court or Additional District Court exercises jurisdiction on both the original and appellate sides in civil and criminal matters arising in the District. The territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction in civil matters is usually set in concerned state enactments on the subject of civil courts. On the criminal side, jurisdiction is almost exclusively derived from the Code of Criminal Procedure. This code sets the maximum sentence that a district court may award, which is currently capital punishment.
The court exercises appellate jurisdiction over all subordinate courts in the district on both civil and criminal matters. Appeals from the district courts lie to the High Court of the concerned state.
There are three types of jurisdiction: 1. Pecuniary or Monetary 2. Territorial
- Subject Matter
How is Territory Decided?
The territory of a court is decided after taking into account several factors:
In Case of Immovable Property:
If the suit is with regard to recovery, rent, partition, sale, redemption, or determination of right of immovable property, it shall be instituted in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situated.
Immovable Property Situated Within the Jurisdiction of Different Courts:
In such a case, the suit may be instituted in any court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situated.
In Case of Dispute Between Two or More Persons with Respect to Movable Property, Business or Any Other Wrong Done:
Where a wrong has been caused to a person, or any damage has been caused to a movable property, then the suit may be instituted: - In the place where the wrong or damage has been caused, or - In the place where the defendant (the person who caused the loss) resides.
Where there is a dispute in business, agreement, or any other kind of civil dispute, except matrimonial matters, then the suit may be instituted either: - In the place where the defendant resides or carries on business, or - In the place where the cause of action has arisen, i.e., where the dispute or wrong took place.
In Case of Matrimonial Dispute:
Where a dispute arises between a husband and wife regarding their marital life, the case may be filed either: - In the place where the marriage was solemnized, or - In the place where the opposite party is residing, or - In the place where the husband and wife last resided together, or - In the place where the person filing the case is residing, provided that the opposite party has not been heard of as alive for the last seven years.
Jurisdiction of Civil Court Under Civil Procedure Code
Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) deals with the jurisdiction of civil courts in India. It states that the courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature, except for 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 II
For the purpose of this section, it is immaterial whether or not any fees are attached to the office referred to in Explanation 1 and whether 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.
Suits Expressly Barred
A suit is said to be 'expressly barred' when it is barred by any enactment for the time being in force. It is open to a competent legislature to bar the 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.
General Principles Relating to the Jurisdiction of a Civil
Court
From various decisions of the Supreme Court, the following general principles relating to the jurisdiction of a civil court emerge:
A civil court has jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature unless their cognizance is barred either expressly or impliedly. Consent can neither confer nor deny the jurisdiction of a court. A decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and the validity thereof can be challenged at any stage of the proceedings, in execution proceedings, or even in collateral proceedings. There is a distinction between want of jurisdiction and irregular use of it. Every court has the inherent power to decide a question of its own jurisdiction. Jurisdiction depends on the averments in the plaint, and not on the averments in the written statement of the defendant.
Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
Substance over Form
For deciding the jurisdiction of a court, the substance of a matter and not its form is important. Every presumption should be made in favor of the jurisdiction of a civil court. A statute ousting the jurisdiction of a court must be strictly construed. The burden of proof to disprove a court's jurisdiction is on the party who questions it. Even when the jurisdiction of a civil court is barred, it can still decide whether the provisions of an Act have been complied with or whether an order was passed outside the provisions of law.
Res Judicata and Stare Decisis
Stare decisis means to stand by decided cases; to uphold precedents. Res judicata and stare decisis are related concepts:
Differences:
Res judicata is based on the conclusiveness of a judgment, while stare decisis rests on legal principles. Res judicata binds parties and privies, while stare decisis operates between strangers and binds courts from taking a contrary view on the point of law already decided. Res judicata relates to a specific controversy, while stare decisis touches legal principles.
Res judicata presupposes a judicial finding upon the same facts as involved in subsequent litigation between the same parties, whereas stare decisis applies the same principle of law to all parties.
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. 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, mala fide, ultra vires, perverse, arbitrary, 'purported', violative of the principles of natural justice, or is based on 'no evidence' and so on.
Exclusion of Jurisdiction: Principles
The Dhulabhai v. State of M.P. case summarized the following principles relating to the exclusion of jurisdiction of civil courts:
a. Finality of Special Tribunals
Where a statute gives finality to orders of special tribunals, the civil courts' jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there is an adequate remedy to do what the civil courts would normally do in a suit. However, this does not exclude 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. Express Bar of Jurisdiction
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 intent becomes necessary, and the result of the inquiry may be decisive.
c. Challenge to Provisions as Ultra Vires
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.
Criticisms of Res Judicata
Res Judicata does not restrict the appeals process, which is considered a linear extension of the same lawsuit. There are limited exceptions to Res Judicata that allow a party to attack the validity of the original judgment, usually based on procedural or jurisdictional issues. In matters involving due process, cases that appear to be Res Judicata may be re-litigated, such as the establishment of a right to counsel.
Res Subjudice
Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code provides the doctrine of Res Subjudice or the rule with regard to stay of suit where things are under consideration by a court.
Conditions for Applicability of Res Subjudice
The matter in issue in the subsequent suit must be the same, which is directly and substantially in issue in the previously instituted suit. The previously instituted suit must be pending in the same Court or in any other Court in India. The previously instituted suit must be pending in a competent Court of civil jurisdiction. The parties in both suits must be the same.
Differences between Res Judicata and Res Subjudice
Res Judicata is contained in section 11 of the CPC, while Res Subjudice is contained in section 10 of the CPC. Res Judicata prohibits the second trial of the same dispute between the same parties, while Res Subjudice prohibits the proceedings of two parallel suits between the same parties. Res Judicata deals with cases that have already been decided by a Court of competent jurisdiction, while Res Subjudice deals with cases that are pending before the Court of competent jurisdiction.
Constructive Res Judicata and Res Judicata
There are two kinds of Res Judicata: Actual Res Judicata and Constructive Res Judicata. The principles of Res Judicata have been further elaborated through case law.
Res Judicata
Actual Res Judicata
Actual Res Judicata means that a matter actually resolved by the Court between the parties in an earlier suit cannot be reopened through a
subsequent suit. In other words, if an issue has been alleged by one party and either denied or admitted (expressly or impliedly) by the other party in an earlier suit, a second suit in respect of the same matter cannot be filed. If such a suit is filed, it would be hit by actual Res Judicata.
Constructive Res Judicata
Constructive Res Judicata means that a matter which might and ought to have been made a ground of claim or defense in a former suit, but a party ignores it, then that issue shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit. In other words, if a party had an opportunity that they ought to have taken a plea (as a plaintiff or defendant) but failed to do so, and the matter is decided, the decision will operate as Res-judicata in respect of all issues which were taken and which ought and might have been taken. As a result, a second suit would not lie for such an issue.
The Supreme Court, in the case of Ramchandra Dagdu Sonavane (Dead) by L.Rs. v. Vithu Hira Mahar (Dead) by LRs. & Ors, AIR 2010 SC 818, has explained the doctrine of constructive res judicata as applicable in Indian law. The doctrine of constructive res judicata, which is a sub-set of the doctrine of res judicata, emanating from Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeks to bar the determination and enforcement of claims which have not been raised at an appropriate juncture in judicial proceedings.
Res Judicata and the Code of Civil Procedure
The doctrine of res-judicata is codified in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. While Section 11 generally comes into play in relation to civil suits, the doctrine of res-judicata or the principle of res-judicata has been applied in various other kinds of proceedings and situations by courts in England, India, and other countries.
The rule of constructive res-judicata is engrafted in Explanation IV of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Principles not only of direct res- judicata but also of constructive res-judicata are applied. If by any judgment or order, any matter in issue has been directly and explicitly decided, the decision operates as res-judicata and bars the trial of an identical issue in subsequent proceedings between the same parties.
The principle of res judicata also comes into play when a decision of a particular issue is implicit in a judgment and order, that is, it must be deemed to have been necessarily decided by implication. In such cases, the principle of res judicata on that issue is directly applicable.
Furthermore, when any matter which might and ought to have been made a ground of defense or attack in a former proceeding but was not so made, then such a matter, in the eye of the law, to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to bring about finality in it, is deemed to have been constructively in issue and, therefore, is taken as decided [See AIR 1978 SC 1283].
Three conditions must be satisfied to attract estoppel: 1. Representation by a person to another 2. The other shall have acted upon the said representation 3. Such action shall have been detrimental to the interests of the person to whom the representation has been made
The differences between res judicata and estoppel are as follows: - Res judicata flows from the decision of a court, but estoppel flows from an act of parties. - Res judicata is based on the principles of public policy, but estoppel is based on principles of equity. - Res judicata prevents multiplicity of litigations, but estoppel prevents multiplicity of representations. - Res judicata ousts the jurisdiction of a court to try a case, whereas estoppel is only a rule of evidence and shuts the mouth of the party. - Res judicata prevents a party from claiming the same thing twice in successive litigations, while estoppel prevents him from saying one thing at one time and the opposite at another.
Cause of Action
The expression 'cause of action' refers to the facts, which show the infringement of the rights of a person. It is a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in court from another person. It is a group of essential facts, which it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove before he can succeed in the suit. If a plaintiff does not disclose the cause of action of a suit, the court will reject the plaint.
Forum Non Convenience and Anti-Suit Injunction
Forum non-convenience (FNC) is a discretionary power of the courts to not entertain a matter on the grounds that there exists a more appropriate court of competent jurisdiction, which would be in a better position to decide the matter. Conversely, an anti-suit injunction is granted by a court preventing the parties before it from instituting or continuing with proceedings in another court.
The Indian perspective on FNC, as per the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of GlaxoSmithKline and Horlicks Limited v Heinz India (MANU/ DE/0011/2009), requires a two-stage enquiry: 1. Whether there is an alternative competent forum, which is appropriate. 2. Whether it is in the interest of justice to relegate the parties to the alternative forum.
The principle of FNC flows from a desire to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting or confusing judgments. Each case has to be decided on its own circumstances, which include economic strength of the parties, expenses, availability of evidence, etc.
Foreign Judgments
Jurisdiction of Foreign Courts
Foreign court must have jurisdiction, or else the judgment will not be recognized or enforced in India.
Jurisdiction refers to the territorial competence of courts.
Binding Nature of Foreign Judgments
Foreign judgments are binding in India, except in the following cases:
Where the judgment has not been pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction. Where the judgment has not been given on the merits of the case. Where the proceedings are founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognize the law of India. Where the proceedings are opposed to the principles of natural justice. Where the judgment has been obtained by fraud. Where the judgment sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in India.
Principle of Res Judicata
Section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code embodies the principle of res judicata in the context of foreign judgments. This principle is adopted to adjudicate disputes with a foreign element, judgments of foreign courts, or as a result of international conventions.
International Perspective
US and UK courts have traditionally recognized the doctrine of forum non conveniens (FNC), though it does not have legislative backing. Civil law countries, in general, do not recognize the doctrine of FNC primarily due to the lack of certainty in its application and the discretionary power given to the judiciary. The case of Owusu v Jackson ([2005] QB 801 Case C 281/02) held that the doctrine of FNC is incompatible with the mandatory system of jurisdiction established by the Brussels Convention.
Anti-Suit Injunction
The doctrine of anti-suit injunction allows a court to direct a party not to pursue a matter before another court. The principles governing anti-suit injunction were set out in the Supreme Court case of Modi Entertainment Network and Anr. v. W.S.G. Cricket Pvt. Ltd. These principles include the court being satisfied about the defendant's amenability to its personal jurisdiction, the possibility of injustice if the injunction is declined, and the principle of comity (respect for the court in which the proceedings are sought to be restrained). The court must also examine the appropriate forum (forum conveniens) and may grant an anti-suit injunction if the proceedings are oppressive, vexatious, or in a forum non conveniens.
Merits refer to the situation where the judge looks at the evidence and based on that decides the case. Judgments that take place due to lack of evidence or non-appearance of a party do not amount to judgments on merits.
Foreign Judgment against International Law or Indian Law : According to Section 13(c) of the Civil Procedure Code, a foreign judgment based on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognize Indian law is not conclusive.
The mistake in the foreign judgment must be apparent prima facie.
Foreign Judgment Opposed to Natural Justice : According to Section 13(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, a foreign judgment based on bias or partiality in the judicial process is null and void.
The judicial process needs to be observed without irregularities in procedure, such as the involvement of impartial persons, fair action, and absence of bias.
Foreign Judgment Obtained by Fraud : According to Section 13(e) of the Civil Procedure Code, a foreign judgment obtained by fraud will not operate as res judicata.
In the case of A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of A.P., fraud was defined, and it was stated that a decree obtained by playing fraud is a nullity.
In the case of Satya v. Teja Singh, a husband obtained a decree of divorce from an American court, claiming he was domiciled there. The Supreme Court later declared the decree to be null.
Foreign Judgment Founded on Breach of Indian Law : According to Section 13(f) of the Civil Procedure Code, a foreign judgment that offends Indian public policy is not enforceable in India.
Presumption as to Foreign Judgments
Section 14 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that the court presumes that a foreign judgment was pronounced by a competent court upon the production of any document claiming to be a certified copy of the foreign judgment, unless the contrary appears on the record.
In the case of Narsimha Rao v. Venkata Laksmi, it was held that a mere Photostat copy of a judgment is not admissible, and it needs to be certified by a representative of the central government of the foreign country.
Submission to the Jurisdiction of a Foreign Court
Voluntary submission of a party to the jurisdiction of a foreign court may be express or implied. The question of submission is a matter of fact and must be decided in light of the facts and circumstances.
If a court having jurisdiction in the matter delivers a foreign judgment, it would operate as res judicata, subject to the exceptions enumerated in Section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Difference between Irregularities and Lack of Jurisdiction
Irregularities: A decree passed by a court is null and void. Lack of Jurisdiction: A decree passed is merely irregular or wrong but not without jurisdiction and cannot be ignored.
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
Foreign judgments can be enforced in India in two ways:
By instituting a suit on the judgment: The court cannot go into the merits of the original claim, and the foreign judgment is conclusive. The suit must be filed within 3 years of the date of the judgment.
By instituting execution proceedings: In specified cases mentioned in Section 44A of the Civil Procedure Code, if a decree of a superior foreign court has been filed, the decree should be executed as if it had been passed by an Indian court.
An award passed by a foreign arbitrator and enforceable in the country where it was made is also enforceable in India.
Decrees and Orders
A decree is a judicial determination of the matter in dispute, made in a civil suit, which conclusively determines the rights of the parties regarding the matters in controversy.
The essential elements of a decree are:
Adjudication Suit Determination of the rights of the parties in controversy Conclusive nature Formal expression of the adjudication
A decree can be preliminary, final, or partly preliminary and partly final.
An order is the adjudication of a court that is not a decree. It is founded on objective considerations and must contain a discussion of the question at issue and the reasons for the court's decision.
court, omitted to sue for the relief in the second suit, then the subsequent suit is not barred.
Joinder of Causes of Action
The text outlines the rules regarding the joinder of several causes of action in one suit:
1. One Plaintiff, One Defendant, and Several Causes of
Action
The plaintiff can unite several causes of action. However, if delay or embarrassment is apprehended, the court can separate the trials.
2. Joinder of Plaintiffs and Causes of Action
Two or more plaintiffs and several causes of action can be united, but only if: a) The cause of action arises from the same act or transaction b) There are common questions of law or fact
3. Joinder of Defendants and Causes of Action
One plaintiff and two or more causes of action can be united only if the defendants are jointly interested in the causes of action. This should be read with Order 1 Rule 3. Two or more defendants can be joined only if: a) The relief claimed is based on the same act or transaction b) There are common questions of law or fact
4. Joinder of Plaintiffs, Defendants, and Causes of Action
If the plaintiffs are not jointly interested, the suit will be barred for misjoinder. If the defendants are not jointly interested, the suit will be barred for multifariousness.
Exceptions to Joinder of Claims
The text outlines exceptions where the plaintiff can join claims without permission of the court: Claims for mesne profits or rent in respect of property or any part claimed Claims of breach of contract under which property or any part is held Claims involving the same cause of action
Suits by/against Administrators, Executors,
and Heirs
The text states that no claims shall be joined with suits by or against administrators, executors, and heirs, unless: In the case of personal claims regarding the estate they represent
Institution of Suits
The text discusses the process of instituting suits, including:
Order IV: Institution of Suits
The plaint must be presented to the court or an appointed officer and is then scrutinized by the Stamp Reporter, after which suits are numbered. The plaint must contain necessary particulars, which will be entered in the register of civil suits.
Order V: Summons
Summons must be sent to the defendant when a suit is filed, to intimate that the suit has been filed and to require the defendant to appear before the court. The summons must be signed by the judge, sealed with the court's seal, and accompanied by the plaint. The defendant must appear in court within 30 days from the date of service of the summons and file a written statement. The court can order the personal appearance of the defendant, with certain exemptions. The summons must contain sufficient time for the defendant to appear before the court and answer the claim, directions to produce witnesses, and an order to produce all documents the defendant intends to rely on. The summons can be served in various ways, including by approved courier service, registered post, speed post, acknowledgment due, courier service, fax, message, email, or any other possible means of transmission.
Pleadings
The text discusses the rules and principles related to pleadings:
Order VI: Pleadings Generally
Pleadings are the statements drawn up and filed by the parties, stating their contentions and all relevant details. The plaintiff's pleading is the plaint, which sets out the cause of action with all the particulars.
The time limit of 90 days to file the written statement is directory, not mandatory, and the court has the power to extend the time limit in exceptional cases. The defendant must raise new facts that the plaintiff would not expect to be raised, such as a void transaction or other grounds of defense. The court can construe an evasive denial as an admission of a fact. The court can pass a decree in the defendant's absence if they do not file a written statement within the given time, but the facts in the plaint also need to be proved, and the court needs to be convinced that a judgment can be passed in favor of the plaintiff. Set-off is a cross-claim for money that partly offsets the original claim, and it can be either a legal set-off or an equitable set-off. Counterclaim is a claim made by the defendant in a suit against the plaintiff, and it can be set up in various modes.
Written Statement and Subsequent Pleadings
Amending Written Statement with Court's Permission
A party may amend their written statement with the permission of the court.
Subsequent Pleading under Rule 9
A party may file a subsequent pleading under Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Counterclaim
A counterclaim may be filed against co-defendants as well, but not solely against co-defendants. The counterclaim of the defendant is to be treated as a plaint, and it is decided on its merits irrespective of the fate of the plaintiff's suit. If the plaintiff does not reply to the counterclaim, the court may pronounce judgment against the plaintiff in their absence. A counterclaim is a cross-action, and the amount must be recoverable at the date of the written statement, unlike a set-off, where it must be recoverable at the date of the suit.
Discovery
Discovery by Interrogatories
A party to a suit may administer a series of questions, called interrogatories, to the other side to acquire information relating to the facts. The purpose is to ascertain the nature of the opponent's case for supporting one's case or for destroying the other side. Interrogatories must be administered with the leave of the court and are subject to the conditions and limitations prescribed by the court. More than one set of interrogatories may not be delivered, unless ordered by the court. The costs of the interrogatories are to be borne by the party administering them, but the party at fault may be
asked to bear the cost of the interrogatories of the other party. Interrogatories must be related to or have a reasonable nexus with any matter in question in the suit and may be objected to if they are scandalous, irrelevant, mala fide, privileged, etc. If no answer is given to the interrogatories, the suit could be dismissed, or the defense could be struck off.
Discovery of Documents
A party can apply to the court to compel the opposite party to disclose any documents in their possession or power relating to any matter in question in the suit. The court may order the disclosure if it is necessary for the fair disposal of the suit or for saving costs. Any document that throws any light on the matter in the proceeding is a relevant document, and any document that may directly or indirectly enable a party to advance their case is a relevant document. However, if the documents are irrelevant or immaterial, the application could be rejected. The party against whom the discovery of documents has been ordered is bound by the order to produce the documents, but they can object on the grounds that they are entitled to legal protection with respect to the document.
Inspection of Documents
There are two categories of documents: those referred to in the pleadings or affidavits, and other documents in possession that are not mentioned in the pleadings. The documents referred to in the pleadings can be demanded for inspection without the court's intervention, and the other party should make them available for evidence within 10 days. If they fail to do so, the court may make an order of inspection. The other documents can only be obtained by an application to the court along with an affidavit outlining the reasons. The court may classify a discovery as premature and postpone it if the documents relate to an issue or matter that is yet to be decided by the court.
Admissions
A party on notice may give admissions. After discovery or inspection, any party may be called to admit the genuineness of any document, and if they refuse or neglect to do so, the costs to prove the genuineness shall be borne by the party neglecting or refusing. Any document that is required to be admitted and is not denied specifically is said to be admitted against the other party, but the court may, at its discretion, ask for that document to be proved otherwise in court. A party may also be asked to admit certain facts for the purpose of the suit, and if they refuse or neglect to do so, the cost of proving the facts lies on that party. The court can pronounce a judgment on the admissions made by the parties, without waiting for a determination of any other question between the parties.
