ASSIGNMENT

Topic - Suit of a Civil Nature

Subject - Code of Civil Procedure

FACULTY OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF LUCKNOW

LL.B(Hons) 5th SEMESTER

Submitted to Submitted by

Prof. Dr.R.S.Prasad Khadeeja Khatoon

Roll no.200013015069
Section- A
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Apart from my efforts, the success of this assignment depends largely on the encouragement and guidelines
of many others.I take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the people who have been instrumental in
the successful completion of this assignment. I would like to add my greatest appreciation to
Dr.RADHEY SHYAM PRASAD SIR. I cannot thank him enough for the support and help he provided me
with. I feel motivated and encouraged every time I attend his lecture. Without his encouragement and
guidance, this project would not have been materialised. The guidance and support received from all my
family members and friends was vital for the successful completion for this assignment. I would also like to
extend special regards to Dr.BD.MISHRA Sir, Head and Dean, Faculty of Law, Universityof Lucknow,
Lucknow. I am forever grateful for his constant support and help.
 ABSTRACT

This topic suit of a civil nature will talk about section 9 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. This section helps to
understand the jurisdiction of civil courts in India and dig deeper into the understanding of matters which are
of civil nature. The topic will cover several case laws which are related to deciding the jurisdiction of civil
courts and correcting the dilemma that occurs in the minds of people.

A common man might not be able to distinguish, much and also does not know the different types of
specialized courts established in India for different matters for e.g., there are consumer courts, family court,
debt recovery tribunals and many other different tribunals and courts. So, such matters despite of being of
civil nature can not be tried by the civil courts due to the baring of civil courts in trying such matters.

So, this topic will help finding out why such things have been done and will act as a guide in understanding
jurisdictions and courts and the matters that can be tried by them with the help of relevant different
provisions mentioned in the Indian statutes and also how court themselves have developed in establishing
their jurisdictions via different case laws.
 INTRODUCTION

Starting with explaining section 9 of CPC, which reads as follows:

The civil courts of India have the power to try all civil matters except suits which are expressly or impliedly
bared” We can see that civil court has two conditions based on which they can decide whether they can or
cannot try that matter:

First condition: that the suit must be of a civil nature.

CIVIL NATURE: it means,relating to provide rights and remedies sought by civil actions as contrasted with
criminal proceedings.

Second condition: that the matter must not be bared by some other law from being tried in a civil court.

Further section 9 also provides with some explanation as follows:

If the main question arising out of the suit is related to decision of property as in to whom does the office or
the property belong but depends on the question of decision of religious rites or ceremonies, does not mean
that civil court now cannot try that matter because a question of determination of religion has been involved.
This does not Bar the civil court from deciding the property matter.

Another explanation is in furtherance of explanation 1, that it is also immaterial that whether or not the
office in question has some fee attached to it or whether or not it is attached to a place.
Issue 1: Analysis of Suits of Civil Nature

All civil suits do not necessarily amount that they are also suit of civil nature. The code does not provide
anything further in explanation it is on the courts to decide whether a matter of civil nature or not.

In the case of Bhatia Coop. housing society vs. D C Patel, AIR 1953 SC, the court said that civil
court has inherent power to decide its own jurisdiction. Civil suits are determined on the basis that whether
they decide private rights of a person, private rights can be explained by giving some examples related to it,
which are usually handled by court such as: right to property, right to worship, right to share in offerings,
damages for civil wrongs, specific performance of contracts, damages for breach of contracts, specific relief,
restitution of conjugal rights, for rent, for wrongful dismissal of salaries, etc. such suits are examples of civil
nature suit.

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.

As can be observed from the explanations, suits of civil nature mean a suit that is presented before a Civil
Court for adjudication of a civil matter, more specifically to determine the right of property or office. 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.”

In PMA Metropolitan vs. MM Marthoma the supreme court in explanation off section 9 observed
that: this section an be divided into two parts; one part is that the court can not deny to conduct any matter
which is related to civil rights, it is their duty to take all the matters which re listed under the section but the
second part it clearly creates a negating factor under this section which creates prohibitions by introducing
the Bar on the court from trying the matters which re out of its jurisdictions due to a bar imposed on the
court by other section some examples to explain it would be suit related to religious rights, related to dignity,
related to caste etc. these matters are not criminal but yet not of civil nature, so section 9 Bar civil courts
from this jurisdiction as explained by the court[3].

The decision that whether a suit is to be under the jurisdiction of the civil court is totally decided by the
court it is the inherent power of the court to decide the jurisdiction, and it should be presumed in a positive
manner at first i.e., it should not straight thought of in a way that certain matter will not be handled by the
court instead it should be presumed that it is under the jurisdiction of the court unless it is expressly or
impliedly bared by any statute it should be taken under the consideration of the said civil court.

Section 9 Court to try all civil suits unless barred- The courts shall (subject to the provisions herein
contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature excepting suit of which their cognizance is either
expressly or impliedly barred.

The word “civil” pertains to rights and remedies of a citizen as distinguished from criminal, political, etc.
The expression “civil proceedings” covers all proceedings in which a party asserts the civil right conferred
by civil law.

Suits may be divided into two classes (a) those which are of civil nature, and (b) those which are not of civil
nature. The expression ‘civil nature’ is wider than the expression ‘civil proceeding’. Thus, a suit is of civil
nature if the principal question therein relates to the determination of a civil right and enforcement thereof. It
is the subject matter of the suit which determines whether or not a suit is one of civil nature.

Suits of civil nature:-

Following are suits of a civil nature:

(i) Suits relating to right to property (Sinha Ramanuja v. R.Ramnuja, AIR 1961 SC 1720)

(ii) Suit by government servant for arrears of salary (State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid AIR 1954 SC 245)

(iii) The right to worship in a temple is civil right (Narhari v.Badrinath Temple Committee, AIR 1952
SC 245)

(iv) Right to religious procession (Saikh piru v. Kalandi Pati,1964 Ori 18. Syed Farzand Ali v. Nasim
Beg, AIR 1983 ALL 342).

(v) Right to burial (Jang Bahadur v. Wazir Khan, 1930 Oudh 54)

(vi) Right to franchise (Sailendernath Misra v. Ram chander, AIR 1921 Cal 85).

(vii) Suit for dissolution of marriage.

(viii) Suit for restitution of conjugal rights.

 (ix) Rights of person as a member of a club (Ram charan v. Shridhar, AIR 1962 ALL 619).

(x) Suits for rent (Sultan v. Ganesh AIR 1988 SC 716).

(xi) Suit for damages (Kamal kumar Puri v. B.M. Engineering works AIR 1982 SC 1173)

Issue 2: Analysis of Suits which are not of Civil Nature

The following are some of the instance which are not suits of civil nature.

(i) Right to privacy- Right to privacy is not recognized by law(Sayyed Azuf v. Ameerubibi (1895) I.L.R.
18 Mad 163). However, where purdah system is prevailing, it gives rise to a cause of
action (Abdul Rahman And Ors. vs Bhagwan Das And Ors((1907 29 All 582).

(ii) Suits involving principally cast questions, A suit in which principal question is one relating to cast is
not a suit of civil nature. (S. Swingaradoss v. Zonal manager, FCI AIR 1996 SC 1182)

(iii) Suits relating purely to religious rites or ceremonies. (Narayan Mudali v. Peria Kalathi Mudali,
AIR 1939 Mad 494)

(iv) Suits for merely upholding dignity or honour, (Sinha Ramanuja v.Ranga Ramnuja, AIR 1961 SC
1720)

(v) Suits for recovery of voluntary payments or offerings.

Issue 3: What is Jurisdiction of Civil Suit?

In the world of law, the first point that an attorney is supposed to prove is that the court which has been
approached by him has the jurisdiction to try the suit. However, neither procedural nor substantive laws
attempt to describe what is meant by the term “Jurisdiction.” The word “Jurisdiction” has stemmed from the
Latin phrase “juris” which translates to “law” and “dicere” meaning “to speak”. In simple terms, it can be
defined as “The power of a court to decide a case or issue a decree.” 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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

Expressly or impliedly barred

1. 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.

2. 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.”
In Raja Ram Kumar Bhargava v. Union of India, the Supreme Court set down certain important
considerations for the determination of implied exclusion of Civil Court’s jurisdiction. They are:

a) Whether a right, not pre-existing in common law has been created by a statute.

b) That statute itself provided machinery for enforcement of that right.

c) Both rights and remedies have been created uno flatu.

d) A finality is intended to be the result of the statutory proceedings.

Unless the relevant statute entails a provision expressly or indicates to an inevitable/necessary implication
stating the jurisdiction of the civil courts is excluded to try the immediate case, exclusion of the jurisdiction
of civil courts will not be assumed. The general rule states the presumption would be made in favor of the
existence of a right to sue in a civil court, whereas exclusion of the same would be considered an exception.
If at all there are doubts regarding the ousting of the jurisdiction of a civil court, the court shall make an
interpretation that would maintain the jurisdiction.

Relevant rights under the 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.” Other than the former, we also have the right
to the office, as given under the explanation. As against the right to property which only has to do with
ownership, the right to office implies a right to both acquire a position and subsequently exercise it. This
could include any position in a job, religion, etc.

In what has spurred controversy and debate, the right to religion has also been declared as a civil right. It
must be noted that any suit, the primary question of which pertains to a religion or a caste, does not belong
to a civil nature. 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.
Issue 4: Analysis of Section 9 of CPC

Presumption and scope

It is a general presumption that when there’s a suit pending before a civil court, it would have the
jurisdiction to try the same. If a party wishes to challenge the competence of the court, then it must prove it
with relevant authorities as to why that is the case and such claims are not accepted on a prima facie perusal
of facts. Further, even if there is a claim of non-competence of the court to hear the particular claim, the
court may still exercise jurisdiction for cases wherein statutory bodies or tribunals have heard cases beyond
their jurisdiction.

It is quite clear that Section 9 of the CPC covers “the jurisdiction of a Court to try the suit.” However, it is
pertinent to note that there are two essential prerequisites that need to be fulfilled before the hearing of the
suit. Firstly, there must be a “cause of action.” Without proving that there was a proper cause of action,
could lead to the suit being summarily rejected. Additionally, courts have opined that suits for temporary
injunctions are not maintainable.

Secondly, there needs to be an inherent right of the plaintiff to sue the defendant. It is pertinent to note that
common law grants this as an inherent right upon all individuals for the filing of a suit. However, this would
differ in cases of appeal as in the case of appeals there are statutory provisions that govern who may and
who may not appeal, but that is not the case in the case of instituting suits. Furthermore, the principles that
are to be applied have been very clearly laid down by a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
wherein the object and scope of Section 9 have been discussed.

Issue 5: What is 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.

In-State of A.P v. Majeta LaxmiKanth Rao, the Supreme Court examined the elimination of jurisdiction
of the civil courts. First, the court needs to decide on the legislative intent to remove the suit either directly
or impliedly. While the courts are obliged to discern the causes for the exclusion of the jurisdiction of civil
courts and find an explanation for the same, the reason is not subject to judicial examination. Thereafter, the
court after being convinced of the reasons needs to ponder on whether the statute prohibiting the jurisdiction
allows for an alternative remedy. The civil court’s jurisdiction cannot be obliterated if no alternative remedy
is stated. However, in Balawwa v. Hasanabi, it was propounded that the jurisdiction of a civil court is
excluded only to such extent concerning a tribunal established by a statute when the support approbated by
the tribunal is questioned.

Justice SubbaRao, J. in the leading case of Radha Kishan v. Ludhiana Municipality, enumerated the
appropriate legal position concerning the jurisdiction of courts under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code,
the court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature except suits of which cognizance is either
expressly or impliedly barred. A statute, 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 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.”

Issue 6: What are the important Judicial Provision?

The above discussion clarifies the jurisdiction of civil courts is all-encompassing unless expressly excluded
by law or intentions arising from such law.

Dhulabhai v. State of M.P.

Justice Hidayatulla, in the case of Dhulabhai v. State of M.P, enumerated certain principles concerning the
exclusion of jurisdiction of civil courts. The facts and the principles laid down in the aforementioned case
are enlisted below.

Facts

The appellants, in this case, were tobacco dealers operating in Ujjain. Tobacco is bought and sold for the
purposes of smoking, eating, and preparing bidis. During the same time the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act,
1950 was enumerated on 1st May 1950. As per Section 3 of the Act, every dealer whose business in the last
year exceeded by rupees 12,000 was liable to pay a tax concerning the sales. It was explicated under Section
5 of the Act, the tax was of a single point nature, and the proviso specified the government is liable to point
out the point of sales when the tax was to be paid. The Section specified the maximum and minimum level
of tax, allowing the respective government to decide the actual rate i.e even though the tax rate is not
prescribed the minimum and maximum level is. A plethora of notifications were issued by the government
from April 1950 to January 1954 imposing taxes at different rates on tobacco as mentioned above. However,
the tax was not collected at the above-stated rate. In Madhya Pradesh, the tax was not imposed on the
purchase or sale of tobacco. The tax was accumulated by authorities in varying amounts for different
quarters from the plaintiff. The plaintiff issued notices under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure
Code explaining no suit can be instituted against the public officer/government until the completion of the
two months’ notice in his official duty.

Principles Laid Down

1. Wherein a finality is attributed to orders of special tribunals, the jurisdiction of civil courts is
assumed to be excluded if sufficient remedy to do what normally civil courts in a suit would do.
However, cases wherein the provisions of a particular Act has not been adhered to or the
fundamental principles of judicial procedure have not been complied with by a statutory tribunal is
excluded by the provision.

2. Where an explicit bar exists to the jurisdiction of a court, finding the reasonableness and
sufficiency of the provided remedies by examining the scheme of a particular Act may be deemed
relevant but indecisive for preserving the jurisdiction of a civil court. However, when no definite
exclusion exists, scrutiny of the remedies and scheme of a particular act to glean the intent
becomes essential and the result of the probe may be decisive. It is necessary in the latter case to
glean whether the statute enumerates any special rights or liabilities and provides for its
determination. The statute further enumerates questions pertaining to the same right and liability
as determined by the constituted tribunals and whether the remedies related to actions in civil
courts are stipulated by the said statute or not.

3. Any suit challenging the provisions of a particular act as ultra vires cannot be brought before the
tribunals created under this Act. Neither can the High courts delve into such a question on a
reference or revisions from decisions of tribunals.

4. A suit may be filed in a case wherein the constitutionality of a provision is questioned or is

deemed unconstitutional.

5. A suit is said to lie where a particular Act does not consist of any machinery for a refund of the tax
collected illegally or over constitutional limitations.

6. A civil suit cannot be brought forth before the court if the directions of the authorities are deemed
final and an explicit prohibition is enumerated in the Act. Concerns regarding the correctness of an
 assessment, barring questions concerning its constitutionality are to be decided by the requisite
authorities. The Scheme of a particular Act in either case must be scrutinised considering the
relevance of the enquiry.

7. Unless the aforementioned conditions are satisfied, questions concerning an exclusion of the
jurisdiction of a civil court are not to be inferred.
The principles enumerated are essential in deciding the exactitude of the assessment of orders under axing
statutes

Premier Automobiles v. K.D. Wadke

The Supreme Court in Premier Automobiles v. K.D. Wadke, propounded certain directions concerning
industrial disputes relevant to the jurisdiction of civil courts. The facts and the principles laid down are
mentioned below.

Facts

The case relates to Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act concerning the dispute between employer
and employee and whether such a dispute can be decided by a civil court. The jurisdiction of the civil court
concerning industrial dispute principles. Section 10A of the Industrial Disputes Act of arbitration-
jurisdiction of civil courts to adjudicate.

Principles laid down

1. If the suit is not an industrial dispute and it does not correspond to the enforcement of any rights
under the Industrial Disputes Act, it shall come under the purview of civil courts.

2. If the dispute is an industrial conflict arising from a right or liability under the public or general
law and not under the ID Act, the jurisdiction of the civil court is to be decided by the appellant
(person concerned), his/her remedy for the relief capable of being granted in a particular remedy.

3. If the Industrial dispute concerns the enforcement of any right or obligation enumerated under the
Act, the suitor can get a remedy only under the Industrial Disputes Act.

Rajasthan State Road Corporation v. Krishna Kant

The Supreme Court recapitulated the principles applicable to industrial disputes after referring to a plethora
of leading decisions on the subject, in Rajasthan State Road Corporation v. Krishna Kant.

Facts
The respondents in this immediate case are employees of the appellant corporation i.e Rajasthan State Board
Transport Corporation. The services of the employees were discontinued following disciplinary proceedings
initiated against them on charges of misconduct. The respondents contended in the civil suits filed by them
that the directive terminating their services is illegal. They further contended for a declaration by the court
that they still continued working for the corporation and were therefore eligible for all consequential benefits.
The suit was challenged by the corporation on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain
the suit.

Principles laid down

1. When a suit arises from a general law of contract in a civil court i.e. and reliefs are claimed on basis of the
general law of contract, it cannot be deemed maintainable, even if the dispute is of an “industrial nature”
within the meaning of “section 2(k)” or “section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.”

2. However, wherein the conflict involves observance, recognition, or enforcement of any rights and
obligations arising out of the Industrial Dispute Act, the way to approach the forum is under the auspices of
the same act “Section 2(k)”, “2-A”.

3. It is incorrect to state the remedies under the “Industrial Disputes Act” are not so effective because the
access to a forum is contingent on a reference made by the appropriate government.

4. Though the government may approve the power to examine, the power disbursed is not the power to
suggest but decide.

5. Consistent with the aforesaid law i.e. command the parliament and state legislature to enact a provision
enabling a workman to address the labour court i.e. without the government’s recommendation in a suit of
Industrial Dispute under “Section 2-A” of the Act. This would help in the removal of any misgivings
concerning the effectiveness of the remedies enumerated under the Industrial Disputes Act.

Lastly, the Supreme Court recently in ChandrakantTukaram v. Municipal Corporation, of Ahmedabad,

reinstated the principles enumerated in previous decisions. The appeals in concern are directed against three
judgments delivered by the Division Bench of Gujrat High Court by a Single Judge dated 22nd September
1990. A civil suit was filed by the workmen of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation challenging the orders of
termination/dismissal of service. Four issues were framed by the city civil court, one of which challenged
the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suit.

It was held that “it cannot be disputed that the procedure followed by civil courts are too lengthy and,
consequently, are not an efficacious forum for resolving the industrial disputes speedily. The power of the
industrial courts also is wide and such forums are empowered to grant adequate relief as they are just and
appropriate. It is in the interest of the workmen that their disputes, including the dispute of illegal
termination, are adjudicated upon by an industrial forum.”
 CONCLUSION

The findings from the project thereby suggest “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. Once it has
been established that such authority e.g. certificate officer has initial jurisdiction, any erroneous order by
him in such circumstance would not be prone to any collateral attack concerning the suit. This is because of
an essential or palpable difference between cases wherein the courts lack jurisdiction to adjudicate cases and
wherein the court exercises the jurisdiction irregularly. However, the Apex Court is yet to clarify the
situation with the case concerning the jurisdiction of a civil court wherein its jurisdiction is partly barred,
impliedly, expressly, or where it is not.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1) BOOK NAME = CPC Book by C.K.TAKWANI

2) SITES

www.lawbhoomi.com

https://www.indiacode.nic.in

www.ssconline.com