Lecture delivered by SHANGAR MURALI, Advocate, High Court Madras

on the WEBINAR organized by Legal Eagles Elite on 04.02.2022

JURISDICTION OF THE COURT (SECTION 9 OF CPC)

(COGNIZANCE OF SUITS BY CIVIL COURT)

Jurisdiction:

It is the combination of Latin terms Juris and Dicto which means “I speak
by the law”. In other words, it means the extend of the authority of the court “to
administer justice”.

The sections in CPC lay down the general principles of the jurisdiction. The
orders in CPC prescribe the method and manner in which the jurisdiction may be
exercised.

The word “jurisdiction” has not been clearly defined in CPC, but it speaks
about different kinds of jurisdiction of civil court.

1. CIVIL JURISDICTION – The power of the courts that deals with the
disputes of civil nature (Section 9).
2. PECUNIARY JURISDICTION – The power of the court over those suits
the amount or value of the subject matter. High Courts and District Courts
have no pecuniary jurisdiction (Section 6). The pecuniary jurisdiction is
fixed as per the Civil Courts Act of the State Government.
3. TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION – The power of the court over events
and persons within the limit of particular geographic territory. The territorial
jurisdiction is limited as per the Civil Courts Act of the State Government.
4. JURISDICTION AS TO THE SUBJECT MATTER – It is the authority
of the court to hear cases of a particular type or cases relating to a specific
subject matter. As per section 16 of CPC, all suits must be instituted where
the subject matter is situated in the court within the local limit of whose
jurisdiction the property is situated. Different courts have been empowered
to decide different types of suits e.g., Testamentary matters (grant of
succession certificate under section 371 of the Indian Succession Act,
1925). The District Court alone has jurisdiction to the Appointment and
Declaration of Guardians under section 4(5) of the Guardians and Wards
 Act, 1890 and Matrimonial matters under section 3(4) of the Divorce Act,
1869.
5. ORIGINAL JURISDICTIN – The power of the court to hear a suit for the
first time normally trial courts.
6. APPELLATE JURISDICTION – The power of the court to review a case
that has already been heard and decided by a lower court.
7. EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION – The power of the court where a court
has exclusive jurisdiction over a territory or subject matter which is
authorized to address that matter.
8. CONCURRENT JURISDICTION – Power possessed by two or more
different courts to hear and decide on the same matter within the same
territory.
9. MUNICIPAL JURISDICTION – Municipal Courts within the country
can exercise the municipal jurisdiction.
10. FOREIGN JURIDICTION – The jurisdiction exercised by a court in a
foreign country.
11. REVISIONAL JURISDICTION – The power of the High Court to revise
the proprietary, legality and correctness of the order passed by the lower
court (Section 115 of CPC).
12. REVIEW JURISDICTION – The jurisdiction of the court to review its
own order on the grounds set out under section 114 and Order XLVII Rule
1 to 9 of CPC.
13. ORDINARY ORIGINAL JURISDICTION – The jurisdiction of the High
Court in civil matters.
14. EXTRAORDINARY ORIGINAL JURISDICTION – The jurisdiction of
the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
15. CONSULATIVE JURISDICTION – The jurisdiction of the District Court
to give opinion in management of trust property under section 34 of the
Trusts Act, 1882.
16. ADMIRALITY OR MARITIME JURISDICTION – Jurisdiction of
Court of Law over cases concerning ships or the sea and other navigable
matters.
17. MARTIAL JURISDICTION – The power of the court to deal with the
military matters.
 18. SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION – The power of the High Court to have
superintendence over all the courts and tribunals throughout the territories –
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
19. CONTEMPT JURISDICTION – The power of the High Court to punish
contempt of subordinate courts – section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1921 and section 14 where contempt is on the face of the Supreme Court or
High Court.
20. ADVISORY JURISDICTION – The powers of the Supreme Court to give
opinion to the President of India on the question of law or fact which is of
public importance – Article 143 of the Constitution of India.

Section 9 of CPC:

Ø The court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting
suits of which its cognizance is expressly or impliedly barred.
Ø There is no definition as to suits in civil nature. However, it means a suit
can be said to be civil in nature if it involves the determination of civil
rights.
Ø There is no definition for civil rights. However, it means the rights and
remedies vested in a citizen within the domain of private law as distinct
from public law.
Examples of private law – Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Contract Act,
1872, Specific Relief Act, 1963 etc.
Examples of public law – Indian Penal Code, 1860, Constitution of India,
1950, Administrative law and International Law etc.

Express Bar:

Ø When the cognizance of the subject matter of the suit is expressly barred by
a statute, the civil court has no jurisdiction.

Examples: Section 11 of CPC, Section 293 of Income Tax Act, 1961 and
Section 34 of SARFAESI Act, 2002

Implied Bar:

Ø Though a statute does not expressly bar the jurisdiction of civil court, when
a hierarchy of forum is setup under that statute as a special remedy to the
party aggrieved, then it amounts to implied bar.
 Examples: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Land Acquisition
Acts, Rent Control Acts etc.
Ø Even in cases of express bar the civil court has jurisdiction provided the act
of the authorities under the special enactment is ultravires [Dulabhai Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1969 SC 78]. Similarly, even in cases of
implied bar when the statute does not provide an adequate and efficacious
alternative remedy then civil court has jurisdiction. [Dhruv Green Field
Limited Vs. Hukam Singh 2002 (6) SCC 416].
Ø The burden of proof to show that civil court has no jurisdiction is on the
person who pleads bar of jurisdiction. [Saheb Gouda Vs. Ogeppa 2003 (6)
SCC 151 and Mahant Dooj Dass Vs. Udasin Panchayati Bara Akhara
2008 (12) SCC 181]
Ø A suit for damages for defamation is also a civil right amenable to
jurisdiction of civil court by virtue of Article 372 of Constitution of India.
Civil action for enforcement of common law right for which there is no
codified law in India can be taken recourse to under section 9 of CPC
[Subramaniya Swamy Vs. Union of India 2016 (7) SCC 22]

Duty of Court:

Ø Is to expound the jurisdiction it means to explain and clarify the authority of

the court, explain the limits of jurisdiction systematically and in detail and it
cannot expand the jurisdiction or usurp the jurisdiction.
Ø It is the duty of the court to see whether its jurisdiction is barred expressly
or impliedly by a statute whether or not the plea of jurisdiction is raised or
not. [Sasan Power Limited Vs. North American Coal Corporation (India
Ltd) 2016 (10) SCC 813].
Ø Decree passed without jurisdiction is nullity even if it attained finality. It
will not operate as res judicata [Union of India Vs. Association of Unified
Telecom Service Providers of India 2011 (10) SCC 543].

Explanation I:

Ø A suit with respect to religious honours, dignities or privileges simplicitor is

not a suit of a civil nature.

Explanation II:
Ø A suit to enforce one’s right to office and to recover or enjoy perquisites,
remuneration, privileges or honours attached to such office is maintainable
[Shri Vanamamalai Ramanuja Jeeyar Vs. Shri Rengaramanuja Jeeyar
AIR 1961 SC 1720,
Kanbi Manji Abji and Others Vs. Kanbi Vaghji Mavji AIR 1993 SC 1163
Sarda Syedna Taher Saifuddin Vs. State of Bombay AIR 1962 SC 853]

NOTABLE JUDGMENTS ON SECTION 9 OF CPC

Ø JACTITATION OF MARRIAGE: A suit for declaration that the defendant

is not the legally married wife of plaintiff and that she has no right to claim
the plaintiff as her husband in as much as the alleged marriage between the
plaintiff and defendant are not legal, valid and tenable in law [Samar
Kumar Roy Vs. Jharna Bera AIR 2018 SC 334]
Ø The civil court can declare the correct date of birth of a party [Ishar Singh
Vs. National Fertilizerd 1991 (Supp) (2) SCC 649]
Ø Civil court has no jurisdiction to decide a question who is a lawful
cultivating tenant. [A Bodayya Vs L.Ramaswamy 1984 (Supp) SCC 391]
Ø A dispute between the employee and employer arising from general law of
contract civil suit is maintainable even though such a dispute constitute an
industrial dispute as per section 2 (k) or section 2-A of the Industrial
Dispute Act 1947. However, the dispute involves recognition, observance or
enforcement of any of the rights or obligations created by the Industrial
Dispute Act 1947, the remedy is to approach the hierarchy of forum
constituted under the said Act. [Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation Vs. Krishnan Kant 1995 (5) SCC 75]
Ø The jurisdiction of the civil court is barred when right is claimed under
Industrial Dispute Act or sister laws [Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation Vs. Mohar Singh 2008 (5) SCC 342]
Ø The civil court jurisdiction is not completely ousted under the Companies
Act 1956 [Dwarka Prasad Agrawal Vs. RC Agrawal 2003 (6) SCC 220]
Ø The pendency of civil suit does not amount to automatic bar to criminal
prosecution on same facts [Lee Kun Hee, President, Samsung
Corporation, South Korea and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Others 2012 (3) SCC 132]
 Ø Simultaneous civil suit and complaint case under section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act 1881 for the same cause of action are maintainable.
[D. Purushotama Reddy Vs. K.Sateesh 2008 (8) SCC 505]
Ø Section 293 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 bars the jurisdiction of the civil
court [Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Parameshwari Devi Sultania
1998 (3) SCC 481]
Ø Section 11 of Kerala Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1965 bars the
civil court jurisdiction. However, recovery of vacant site after destruction of
tenanted building or superstructure by natural calamity is not a ground for
eviction of tenant under the said Act. Therefore, landlord would have to
take recourse to a suit for recovery of possession in a civil court which is
competent to try the civil suit [Vannattana Ibrayi Vs. Kunhabdulla Hajee
2001 (1) SCC 564]
Ø Section 125 of Kerala Land reforms Act, 1963 bars the jurisdiction of civil
court [Amina Bibi Vs. Thachi and Others 2010 (12) SCC 679]
Ø Civil court jurisdiction is implied barred under Land Acquisition Act, 1894
[Laxmi Chand Vs. Gram Panchayat 1996 (7) SCC 218]
Ø Sections 84 and 86 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 bars the jurisdiction
of civil court [Munshi Ram Vs. Municipal Committee 1980 (Supp) SCC
781]

Objection to jurisdiction (Section 21 of CPC):

Ø Section 21 of CPC does not apply to High Court in exercise of its Original
Jurisdiction [Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. S.K.Agarwal AIR 2008 CAL
148 (DIVISION BENCH)]
Ø An Objection as to territorial jurisdiction of court has been taken at the
earliest possible opportunity and in any case at or before settlement of
issues. Objection not taken at the earliest cannot be allowed to be taken at
subsequent stage [Harsad CL Modi Vs. DLF Universal Ltd AIR 2005 SC
4446].
Ø Where there is no failure of justice, no objection as to the place of suing can
be allowed to be taken for the first time by any appellate or revisional court
[RSDV Finance Co Pvt Ltd Vs. Shree Ballabh Glass Works Ltd 1993 (2)
SCC 130]
NOTABLE JUDGMENTS OF 2021 ON SECTION 9 OF CPC

Ø The respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are carrying on business outside the original

jurisdiction of Madras High Court. But they have violated the appellant’s
patent right and sold their product through their dealer in Chennai.
Therefore the appellant filed a Civil Suit before the Honourable High Court
of Madras after obtaining leave to sue under clause 12 of the Letters Patent
1865. As per clause 12 of Letters Patent 1865, a part of cause of action
arose within the original jurisdiction of the Honourable Madras High Court,
the leave to sue must be obtained. Accordingly leave was granted. But the
respondents filed an application to revoke the leave and also to reject the
plaint on the ground of “forum conveniens”. As the appellant is forum
shopping the learned single judge revoked the leave granted under section
12 of the Letters patent 1865 and rejected the plaint. In the Original Side
Appeal, the Division Bench of Madras High Court has held that once a
plaint is entertained by civil court under Section 9 read with section 20 of
CPC, it cannot be returned and there is no question of revoking the leave
and allowed the said appeal. [Sulphur Mills Ltd Vs. Dayal Fertilizers Pvt
Ltd & Other 2021 (3) CTC 178]
Ø The respondent obtained leave to sue under clause 12 of the Letters Patent
1865 and filed the suit. Later the leave granted to sue was revoked by the
Honourable Single Judge of the Madras High Court. In the Original Side
Appeal, the Honourable Divisional Bench of Madras High Court has held
that a mere residence or business within the jurisdiction of court by itself
not sufficient to confer jurisdiction in absence of want of cause of action
arising within the jurisdiction of court. Section 9 CPC does not confer
jurisdiction of court to entertain a suit where the plaintiff resides or carries
on business if no part of cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of
court. When a suit was filed before the competent court at Singapore the
appellant has to approach the court at Singapore and not the High Court of
Madras. In the upshot, the order revoking leave to sue was confirmed.
[Union Maritimes (India) Pvt Ltd Vs. Valency International Trading Pvt
Ltd 2021 (2) CTC 31]
Ø The appellants as plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to administer
Kottaimariyamman and Pidariyamman Temple at Omalur, Neikarapatty in
 their capacity as hereditary trustees. The core issue ‘whether the plaintiffs
are hereditary trustees’ is the substantial issue that can be decided by the
Joint Commissioner of HR&CE under section 63(b) of the Tamil Nadu Act
22 of 1959. Therefore, the jurisdiction of civil court is impliedly barred.
Therefore the suit is not maintainable. [K.G.Kuppusammy and others Vs.
Ramakrishnan 2021 (4) LW 585]
Ø There is an inherent right in every person to bring a suit of civil nature and
unless the suit is barred by statute. One may, at one’s peril, bring a suit of
one’s choice even if it is vexatious. However this does not apply to a
statutory right of action which is not a civil suit nor is in lieu of a civil suit.
[Manish Kumar Vs. Union of India and Anr 2021 (5) SCC 1]
Ø Section 9, 21 of C.P.C and sections 177-184 Cr.P.C- Once a plaint is
admitted it can be returned for want of pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction
under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC. The objection as to pecuniary and
territorial jurisdiction can be raised before the court of first instance at the
earliest point of time. But no such provision is available in Cr.P.C akin to
section 21 of CPC. But in Cr.P.C a limited power is available to the
Magistrate under section 201 to return a complaint only before taking
cognizance of the same. [Kaushik Chatterjee Vs. State of Haryana and
others 2021 (1) CTC 219]
Ø While scrutinizing a plaint at the stage of numbering, the court is
empowered to verify: (i) substantial compliance of Cause Title, form of
pleading and parties to Suit with Appendix A; (ii) existence of legally
enforceable right apparent on plain reading of Plaint; (iii) bar of inherent
jurisdiction by any Statute; (iv) ex facie bar of limitation; (v) Territorial and
Pecuniary jurisdiction or any doubt as to such jurisdiction; (vi) whether
precise amount stated in Money Suit; (vii) description of property stated;
(viii) if any relief is sought; (ix) valuation and Court-fee based on Plaintiff's
valuation; (x) documents enclosed with list provided in Plaint; (xi) signing
and verification of Plaint; (xii) accompanying papers such as copy of Plaint
& Affidavit, Vakalat, Application for leave to sue, process with copies of
Plaint and any other applications with Affidavit; (xiii) obvious
typographical/clerical error. The rejection of Plaint under Order VII Rule
 11 CPC cannot be invoked at the stage of numbering of Plaint. [Selvaraj
Vs. Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant India Ltd 2021 (4) CTC 539]
Ø A member of the cooperative society availed loan by executing mortgage
deed in favour of the cooperative society. He filed a suit for redemption
before the civil court by depositing the mortgage amount. Under section 90
of Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act the dispute between member and
society can only be resolved by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies.
Therefore the jurisdiction of civil court is barred to that extent. Therefore
the suit was dismissed with liberty to the plaintiff to approach the
Jurisdictional Registrar. [A.Maria John Vs. Colachel Cooperative
Housing Society Limited, Kanyakumari District 2021 (4) CTC 779]

“Knowledge is the only thing which cannot be robbed

but with knowledge anything can be achieved”
- Unknown.

“Jai Hind”