1

DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

SABBAVARAM, VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

PROJECT TITLE

Territorial jurisdiction of the civil suit

SUBJECT

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

NAME OF THE FACULTY

Ms. Bhagyalakshmi N mam

Name of the Candidate

B.Milinda

Roll No.

2018017

Semester

Vth
 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I take this opportunity to express my profound gratitude and deep regards to my guide Ms.
Bhagyalakshmi N mam for her exemplary guidance, monitoring and constant encouragement
throughout the course of this project. The blessings and guidance given by her time to time shall
carry me a long way in the journey of life on which I am about to embark. I take this opportunity
to thank all my seniors and for their constant support and guidance throughout the making of my
project. This Project had helped me a lot in understanding and evaluating the Territorial
jurisdiction of the civil suit

SIGNATURE OF THE STUDENT

B. Milinda
 3

TABLE OF CONTENT

1. SYNOPSIS……………………………………………………………………4
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / ABSTRACT………………………………….6
3. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………7
4. THE BASIS TO DETERMINE JURISDICTION………………………….8
5. KINDS OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………………9
6. TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION…………………………………………12
7. TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF COURTS IN INDIA……………...12
8. CASE ANALYSIS…………………………………………………………….14
9. CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………….20
10. BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………….21
 4

SYNOPSIS

TOPIC:

Territorial jurisdiction of the civil suit.

INTRODUCTION:

Jurisdiction is defined as the limit of judicial authority or extent to which a court of law can
exercise its authority over suits, cases, appeals etc. A 1921 Calcutta High Court judgement in the
case of Hriday Nath Roy Vs Ram Chandra sought to explain the meaning of the term
‘Jurisdiction’ in detail. An investigation of the cases in the texts shows several attempts to
explain the word Jurisdiction which has been declared to be the power to hear and determine the
issues of law and the fact or the authority by which their judicial powers take knowledge of facts
and decide causes or the authority to hear and decide the legal dispute or the power to hear and
determine the subject matter in the dispute among the parties to a suit and to adjudicate or
exercise any judicial power over them or the ability to hear, determine and declare judgement on
issues before the court or the power or authority which is given to a court by government to
understand and learn causes between parties and to give a judgement into the effect or the power
to enquire into the facts to apply the law to pronounce the Judgement and put it into execution.

AIM OF THE RESEARCH:

The main aim of the research is to discuss about the Territorial jurisdiction of the civil suit and to
know about the basis to determine jurisdiction.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The researcher has adopted doctrinal method of research and the entire paper is in the form of
analysis of established procedures, following the analytical research style.

SCOPE

The Scope of this study is curtailed to the India and other countries.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE:
 5

This research paper is prepared by referring many books, articles from magazines, journals,
newspapers, reports of NDC, internet sources etc.

RESEARCH QUESTION:

1. Whether the composite suit for passing off and copyright infringement can be filed at a
place where the plaintiff resides or carries on business, etc.

CONCLUSION:

civil court has jurisdiction to decide the question of its jurisdiction although as a result of the
enquiry it may eventually turn out that it has no jurisdiction over the matter. Civil court has
jurisdiction to examine whether tribunal and quasi- judicial bodies or statutory authority acted
within their jurisdiction. But once it is found that such authority, e.g., certificate officer had
initial jurisdiction, then any erroneous order by him is not open to collateral attack in a suit.
Because there is an essential and marked distinction between the cases in which courts lack
jurisdiction to try cases and where jurisdiction is irregularly exercised by courts.
 6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Jurisdiction the word is derived from Latin terms juris and dicto which means I speak by the law.
As a matter of fact, the term Jurisdiction is always construed as one of the most important terms,
yet it is not defined under any statute. Even the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which is the
procedural law of India is also silent on it. In other words, Jurisdiction means the authority or
power which a court has in order to decide upon matters that are litigated before it or issue a
decree regarding the same. It also means the geographical area within which the legal or judicial
authority can be exercised. In the case of Official Trustee v. Sachindra Nath, the Supreme court
ruled out that Jurisdiction must not only include the power to hear but also the authority to hear
and decide upon the question at issue presented before it and accordingly take steps to resolve
the particular dispute that has arisen between the parties. A court having jurisdiction is said to be
a competent court and each country explicitly defines jurisdiction under its legal framework
which indirectly or directly plays an important role for the efficient administration and effective
litigation management. Therefore, it could be said that Jurisdiction in a nutshell means authority,
power and competency of court to deal with the matters that are placed before it and in order to
exercise jurisdiction the existence of jurisdiction is a pre-requisite otherwise the decree passed by
a court would be construed as null and void.
 7

INTRODUCTION

JUSIRDICTION

Before we look at the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the CPC) with
reference to the jurisdiction of civil courts in India, it would be interesting to note the meaning of
jurisdiction. The CPC does not define the term jurisdiction. In fact, none of the substantive or
procedural laws seeks to define the term “jurisdiction”.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines “jurisdiction” as “A court’s power to decide a case or issue a
decree.”

Jurisdiction means and includes any authority conferred by the law upon the court, tribunal or
judge to decide or adjudicate any dispute between the parties or pass judgment or order.
Jurisdiction is key question for the court which goes to the root of the case and decide the fate of
matter either at preliminary stage or on merit. If any order passed without jurisdiction, it
becomes nullity and not enforceable by law.

The Calcutta High Court in a full bench judgment in 1Hirday Nath v. Ram Chandra sought to
explain the term jurisdiction. It stated “… jurisdiction may be defined to be the power of Court to
hear and determine a cause, to adjudicate and exercise any judicial power in relation to it; in
other words, by jurisdiction is meant the authority which a court has to decide matters presented
in a formal way for its decision.”

It went on to clearly demarcate three categories of jurisdiction- subject matter jurisdiction, i.e.
whether the particular court in question has the jurisdiction to deal with the subject matter in
question; territorial jurisdiction, i.e. whether the court can decide upon matters within the
territory or area where the cause of action arose; and pecuniary jurisdiction, i.e. whether the court
can hear a suit of the value of the suit in question.

Before going on any further, it must be mentioned that the jurisdiction of the court is not whether
the court is entitled to pass a particular order or decree in a suit. It is whether the court has the
right to hear the particular case. Further, also the jurisdiction is decided by the allegations made
in the plaint, and not the defence’s arguments.

1
AIR 1921 Cal 34
 8

Section 9 of the CPC reads

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

Explanation 1-

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 purposes of this section, it is immaterial whether or not any fees are attached to the office
referred to in Explanation I or whether or not such office is attached to a particular place.”

The section clearly allows for the legislature by statute to expressly bar the jurisdiction of the
Civil Courts.

The general rule however is that the presumption would be made in favour of the existence of a
right to sue in a Civil court, the exclusion of the same being an exception.

THE BASIS TO DETERMINE JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction is determined mainly on the grounds of:

1. Fiscal value;

2. Geographical boundaries of a court;

3. The subject matter of court.

So, the Court, before accepting notice of crime, need to take into consideration the following
characteristics:

 The Fiscal value of the trial.

 The specialities of the case.

 The regional limits of the court.

 9

It is not only suitable that panel should have any right to deal with the issue or that the court has
a pecuniary jurisdiction of the court has a local jurisdiction, but the court must be able to grant
the compensation in such matter. In the case of Official Trustee Vs Sachin Nath, the court held
that in order to deal with the topic the court must not be the only jurisdiction to decide a specific
matter but also the court has the ability to give the order for which it is examined.

KINDS OF JURISDICTION

Territorial or local jurisdiction

Under this territorial or local jurisdiction, the geographical limits of a court’s authority are
clearly delineated and specified. It cannot exercise authority beyond that geographical/ territorial
limit. For example, if a certain crime is committed in Madhya Pradesh, only the courts of law
within the borders of Madhya Pradesh can hear and decide the case. Furthermore, Section 16 of
the Code of Civil Procedure explains the territorial jurisdiction on the grounds of the location of
the immovable property. In the case of Harshad Chiman Lal Modi Vs D.L.F Universal Ltd , the
court interpreted Section 16 that the suit pertaining to immovable property should be brought to
the court. The court does not have the power to decide the rights of property which are not
situated. However, the court can still pass a relief if the opposite party agrees to try the suit in
such a case.

Pecuniary jurisdiction

Pecuniary means ‘related to capital.’ It approaches the question of whether the court is
competent to try the case of the financial value. The code allows analysing the case unless the
suit’s value exceeds the financial limit of the court. Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure
commands the organisation of the suit in the court of the low grade. It refers to pecuniary
jurisdiction of Civil court. It is a course of the method and it does not affect the jurisdiction of
the court. The main objective of establishing pecuniary jurisdiction is to prevent the court of a
higher level from getting burdened and to provide assistance to the parties. However, the court
shall interfere if it finds the judgment to be wrong. For example, ’A ’wants to accuse ‘B’ due to a
violation of the contract to obtain Rs 5000 in Bombay. The Bombay High Court has original
jurisdiction and small causes court with the jurisdiction up to Rs 50000. So, a suit to obtain Rs
 10

5000 should ideally be dealt with small causes court. In the case of 2Karan Singh Vs Chaman
Paswan the plaintiff filed a suit in the subordinate court involving an amount of Rs 2950, but the
court rejected the case. Later his next appeal was allowed by the High Court, but it ordered him
to pay the deficit amount. The appellant contested that the decision of the district court will be a
nullity, but the High Court dismissed the claim. Later the Supreme Court confirmed the decision
of the High Court declaring that the decision of district court won’t be void.

Jurisdiction as to the subject matter

The subject matter can be defined as the authority vested in a court to understand and try cases
concerning a special type of subject matter. In other words, it means that some courts are banned
from hearing cases of a certain nature. No question of choices can be decided by the court which
do not have subject matter jurisdiction. Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure is related to
the stage challenging the jurisdiction. For Example, “Ranveer”, a resident of Sonipat bought a
food item of ‘AA’ brand that was plagued with pests. He should prosecute ‘ZZ’ company in
Sonipat District forum rather than District Civil Court of Sonipat.

Original and appellate jurisdiction

Appellate jurisdiction refers to the court’s authority to review or rehearsal the cases that have
been already decided in the lower courts. In the Indian circumstances, both the High Court and
Supreme Court have the appellate jurisdiction to take the subjects that are bought in the form of
appeals.

Original Jurisdiction refers to the court’s authority to take notice of cases that could be decided
in these courts in the first instance itself. Unlike appellate jurisdiction wherein courts review the
previously decided matter, here the cases are heard afresh.

Exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction

In Civil Procedure, exclusive jurisdiction means where a single court has the authority to decide
a case to the rejection of all the courts. This jurisdiction is decided on the basis of the subject
matter dealt with by a specific court. For example, the U.S District courts have particular
jurisdiction on insolvency topics.

2
1954 AIR 340, 1955 SCR 117
 11

Concurrent jurisdiction exists where two or more courts from different systems simultaneously
have jurisdiction over a particular case. In this situation, parties will try to have their civil or
criminal case heard in the court that they perceive will be most favourable to them.

General and special jurisdiction

General jurisdiction means that general courts do not limit themselves to hearing only one type
of cases. This type of jurisdiction means that a court has the power to hear all types of cases. So
the court that has general jurisdiction can hear criminal, civil, family court case and much more.

Specific jurisdiction is the ability of the court to hear a lawsuit in a state other than the
defendant’s home state if that defendant has minimum contacts within the state where the suit
will be tried.

Legal and equitable jurisdiction

Equitable jurisdiction belongs to the authorities of the courts to take specific actions and pass
some orders in order to deliver an equitable and reasonable outcome. These judgments are
usually outside the purview of law, in the sense that support provided by the courts may not be
necessarily confirmed by the statue. In the case of K.K.Velusamy Vs N.Palanisamy, the Supreme
Court of India held that Section 151 does not give any special jurisdiction to civil courts, but
only presents for the application of discretionary power to achieve the ends of justice. This
suggests that the court cannot give any such order which may be denied under any law in such an
order that may be prohibited under any law in order to achieve the ends of justice. This would
lead to the conclusion that such equitable jurisdiction is secondary to the authority of the courts
to implement the law.

Expounding and expanding jurisdiction

Expounding jurisdiction means to describe, clarify and explain jurisdiction. Expanding

jurisdiction means to develop, expand or prolong jurisdiction. It is the duty of the court to clarify
its jurisdiction and it is not proper for the court to extend its jurisdiction.
 12

TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

Sections 16 to 20 of the CPC deal with territorial jurisdiction of a Court (place of suing).
Whereas Sections 16 to 18 relate to immovable property, suits for compensation for wrongs to
persons or movables have been dealt with under Section 19. Section 20 of the Code is a residuary
provision and covers all cases not falling under Sections 16 to 19.

In 3Dabur India Ltd. v. K.R. Industries, the apex court has dealt with the question whether the
composite suit for passing off and copyright infringement can be filed at a place where the
plaintiff resides or carries on business, etc. in terms of section 62 of the Copy Right Act, 1957?

Clause (2) of section 62 of the Copy Right Act provides for an additional forum to file suit for
copyright infringement. It authorizes a person to institute suit or other proceedings in the court
within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the person instituting the suit or other proceedings
or, where there are more than one such persons, any of them actually and voluntarily resides or
carries on business or personally works for gain as well. It is provided in addition to what is
provided under section 20 of the Code. However, similar provision has not been made in the
Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. Thus, having considered the true intent and purport of
the relevant provisions of law in detail, the apex court held that the composite suit for passing off
and copyright infringement cannot be filed at a place where the plaintiff resides or carries on
business, etc.

TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF COURTS IN INDIA

Every Litigant before proceeding with his/her claim is faced with one common perplexing
question as to which court shall have the territorial jurisdiction to hear and finally adjudicate the
dispute. The law contained in Constitution, Civil and Criminal Code and statues on various
subject matters clearly provide and demarcate jurisdiction of the courts but in spite of the same,
the common issue that often arises before the court is in regard to territorial jurisdiction of
courts.

This article aims to briefly describe the law governing territorial jurisdiction of courts. Before
proceeding further, it is essential to understand the meaning of the term jurisdiction to
understand the law governing territorial jurisdiction. Jurisdiction of court refers to power of the
3
(2008) 10 SCC 595.
 13

court to deal with the matter and render a decision for the resolution of matter. Jurisdiction of
every court is on three counts i.e. Subject matter, Pecuniary and Territorial.

Territorial jurisdiction refers to power of the court to inquire and proceed with the trial of matter
that is presented before it. The following is brief description of the law on territorial jurisdiction

In the case of 4Harshad Chiman Lal Modi Vs. DLF Universal, AIR 2005 SC 4446 Hon'ble
Apex Court observed that, section 16 thus recognizes a well-established principle that actions
against res or property should be brought in the forum where such res is situate. A court within
whose territorial jurisdiction the property is not situate has no power to deal with and decide the
rights or interests in such property. In other words, a court has no jurisdiction over a dispute in
which it cannot give an effective judgment. Proviso to Section 16, no doubt, states that though
the court cannot, in case of immovable property situate beyond jurisdiction, grant a relief in rem
still it can entertain a suit where relief sought can be obtained through the personal obedience of
the defendant.

5
In Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd. [1971]3 SCR 314 , it was held by Hon'ble Apex
Court that it is not open to the parties to confer by their agreement jurisdiction on a Court which
it does not possess under the Code. But where two Courts or more have under the
Code of Civil Procedure jurisdiction to try a suit or a proceeding, an agreement between the
parties that the dispute between them shall be tried in one of such Courts is not contrary to
public policy. It was also held that such an agreement does not contravene Section 28 of
the Contract Act.

4
AIR 2005 SC 4446
5
[1971]3 SCR 314
 14

CASE ANALYSIS

NAME OF THE CASE

6
Dabur India Limited

v.

K.R. Industries

NAME OF THE COURT

Supreme court

CITATION

I.A. No. 1236/2006 in C.S. (OS) No. 1347/2002

HON’BLE JUDGES

A.K. Sikri, J.

FACTS:

The Appellant, Dabur India Ltd., manufactured a product known as ‘Dabur Red Tooth Powder’
or ‘Dabur Lal Dant Manjan’. The Appellant claimed copyright in the ‘carton’ of the product and
alleged that the said ‘carton’ constitutes an ‘artistic work’ under Section 2(c) of the Copyright
Act 1957 (the 1957 Act). Respondent was also a manufacturer of a tooth powder known as
‘Sujata’. Allegedly it had infringed the copyright of the Appellant as it was using an identical
colour scheme, lay out, arrangement of features and get up as that of the Appellant’s product.
Appellant filed a suit for infringement of Copyright and passing off before the Delhi High Court.

Arguments on behalf of the Appellant:

1. Division Bench committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment in so far as
it failed to take into consideration the effect of a consolidated suit under the 1957 Act as
also the Trade Marks Act, 1958 (for short ‘the 1958 Act’).
2. A composite suit is maintainable having regard to sub-section (1) of Section 55 of the
1957 Act.
6
(2008) 10 SCC 595
 15

3. The jurisdiction of the court to entertain a composite suit under the 1957 Act and the
1958 Act should be determined having regard to the provisions of Section 55 of the
former. The term ‘Law’ within the meaning of the said provision would not only include
a statute law but also the common law and, thus, viewed from that perspective a
composite suit for infringement of a copyright as also passing of shall be maintainable.
Strong reliance in this behalf was placed on Exphar Sa & Anr. v. Eupharma Laboratories
Ltd. & Anr. [(2004) 3 SCC 688].

DEFENDANT CONTENTIONS

1. Respondent filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 for return of plaint on the ground that the Delhi High Court had no territorial
jurisdiction to entertain the claim for passing off as the Respondent was based in Andhra
Pradesh and no sales have been made by the Respondent of it’s product in Delhi.
Therefore, as per the Respondent no cause of action had arisen in Delhi.
2. The Apex Court in Dhodha House v. S.K. Maingi, [(2006) 9 SCC 41] categorically held
that the cause of action for infringement of the 1957 Act and that of the 1958 Act are
distinct and separate.
3. Order II Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 deals with pecuniary jurisdiction
and not the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.
4. The Trade Marks Act, 1958 does not have a provision towards conferring special
privilege/additional forum on the Appellant to file a suit where it resides, carries on
business or personally works for gain for infringement of trade mark as well as passing
off. Even, the latest Trade Marks Act, 1999, which confers special privilege on a party to
file a suit for infringement of trade mark at a place where it resides, carries on business or
personally works for gain does not extends the same in relation to a passing off action.
Therefore, even the Parliament did not think it expedient to provide for any provision
giving an option to a party to file a suit where it resides.

ISSUE

Whether causes of action in terms of both the Copyright Act of 1957 and the 1958 Act although
may be different, would a suit be maintainable in a court only because it has the jurisdiction to
entertain the same in terms of Section 62(2) of the 1957 Act?
 16

COURT OBSERVATION

As regards the maintainability of a composite suit, it was held that it is not maintainable unless
the court enjoys the jurisdiction to entertain the suit in relation to the entire cause of action and
the entire relief. Order II, Rule 3 of the Code contemplates uniting several causes of action in the
same suit. As held in Dhodha(supra), by necessary implication, the cause of action for
infringement of copyright and the cause of action for infringement of trademark or a cause of
action for passing off are different. Even if one cause of action has no nexus with another,
indisputably Order II, Rule 3 of the Code will apply. However, Order II, Rule 3 will not confer a
Court with jurisdiction under 1958 Act when the Court does not enjoy such a jurisdiction. It was
also held that an action for passing off is common law right but the same does not determine the
jurisdiction of the court. For exercising such jurisdiction, the provisions of the Code would be
applicable. 1957 Act being a special law would, thus, prevail over the general law, viz., the
Code.

JUDGMENT

In the said suit, the Delhi High Court passed an order that the court had no jurisdiction to
entertain the suit as the Respondent is a resident of Andhra Pradesh. An intra court appeal was
preferred. However, the same was dismissed by the Division Bench of the said Court holding
that the matter is covered by the decision of this Court in Dhodha House v. S.K. Maingi; [(2006)
9 SCC 41]. The Appellant preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court against this order of the
Delhi High Court.

The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the orders of the High Court. Thus, the appeal was
dismissed with costs.
 17

NAME OF THECASE

7
Harshad Chiman Lal Modi

vs.

DLF Universal and Anr.

CITATION

AIR 2005 SC 4446

NAME OF THE COURT

Supreme Court

FACTS

In this case the appellant, Harshad Chiman entered into a ‘plot buyer agreement’ with DLF for
purchase of a residential plot in Gurgaon, Haryana. According to the appellant, the agreement
was made in Delhi. Appellant entered into an agreement The head office of DLF was also
situated in Gurgaon. Later on, despite regular payment of installments by Harshad Chiman, the
contract was unilaterally cancelled by DLF. A suit was then filed in Delhi High Court which was
later on transferred to District Court of Delhi.

ISSUE

The key issue in this case was whether Civil court of Delhi had jurisdiction to try and entertain
the suit?

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

1. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contented that the defendants were having their
head Office at Delhi, the agreement had been entered into at Delhi, payment was to be

7
AIR 2005 SC 4446
 18

made and in fact made at Delhi, breach of agreement took place at Delhi and hence Delhi
Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the plaintiff could have instituted the suit
in Delhi Court.
2. It was also submitted that the parties had agreed that the Delhi Court alone had
jurisdiction in all matters arising out of the transaction. It further contended that as Clause
28 of the agreement specifically provided that the transaction would be subject to the
jurisdiction of Delhi Court, institution of suit in Delhi Court by the plaintiff could not
have been objected to and no order could have been passed by the trial court holding that
it had no jurisdiction.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

1. On the other hand, counsel for DLF argued that the suit relates to specific performance of
agreement relating to immovable property and in accordance with the provisions of
Section 16 of the Civil Procedure Code, such suit can be instituted where the immovable
property is situate. He further contended that if the court had no jurisdiction, parties by
consent cannot confer jurisdiction on it. Such a case is different from a case in which two
or more courts have jurisdiction and parties have agreed to jurisdiction of one court.
2. According to him, Section 20 of the Code would apply where two courts have
jurisdiction and the parties agree as to jurisdiction of one such courts by restricting their
right to that forum instead of the other. When Delhi Court had no jurisdiction whatsoever,
no reliance could be placed either on Section 20 of the Code or on Clause 28 of the
agreement.

COURT OBSERVATIONS

District Court decided the question in negative and directed the appellant to be file the case is
appropriate court. Petition filed against this order of Delhi Civil Court was dismissed by the
Delhi High Court. The matter then reached to the Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT

After hearing the parties, the trial court by an order dated May 25, 1998 upheld the contention of
the defendants and ruled that Delhi Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The plaint was,
therefore, ordered to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper court. For the
 19

foregoing reasons, in our opinion, no case has been made out by the appellant against the order
passed by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be
dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however,
there shall be no order as to costs.
 20

CONCLUSION

From the above contents of my project it can be concluded that section 9 at ‘the threshold of the
Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) primarily deals with the question of civil court’s jurisdiction to
entertain a cause. It lays down that subject to what are contained in section 10,11, 12, 13, 47, 66,
83, 84, 91, 92, 115, etc., civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit of civil nature except when
its cognizance is expressly barred or barred by necessary implication. civil court has jurisdiction
to decide the question of its jurisdiction although as a result of the enquiry it may eventually turn
out that it has no jurisdiction over the matter. Civil court has jurisdiction to examine whether
tribunal and quasi- judicial bodies or statutory authority acted within their jurisdiction. But once
it is found that such authority, e.g., certificate officer had initial jurisdiction, then any erroneous
order by him is not open to collateral attack in a suit. Because there is an essential and marked
distinction between the cases in which courts lack jurisdiction to try cases and where jurisdiction
is irregularly exercised by courts.
 21

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

1. M.A. Mana, Mulla on the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. A.N. Saha’s ‘the code of civil procedure.

WEBSITES

1. https://blog.ipleaders.in/jurisdiction-of-civil-courts-2/#:~:text=Whenever%20the%20suit
%20is%20made,with%20any%20of%20the%20cases.
2. http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/508/Jurisdiction-Of-Civil-Court-Under-Civil-
Procedure-Code.html
3. https://www.lawsenate.com/publications/articles/territorial-jurisdiction-of-courts-
india.pdf
22