Objection to the jurisdiction of civil court

Jurisdiction of civil court is a fundamental aspect of the justice delivery system. One civil court is empowered to entertain any suit of a civil nature unless its jurisdiction is either expressly or impliedly barred (Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC)). In case the civil court does not have jurisdiction, then the decree passed by that court is a nullity and the same may be impeached in any subsequent and collateral proceedings (Kiran Singh Vs Chaman Paswan AIR 1954 SC 340).

 Jurisdiction of courts

Given this background in mind, we may classify the jurisdiction of a court. The jurisdiction of a civil court may be of the following types: 

1. Territorial Jurisdiction;
2. Pecuniary Jurisdiction;
3. Jurisdiction over subject matter.

Unlike the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the jurisdiction of the civil courts is not defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or in the Civil Rules and Orders, framed under the CPC by the High Court. As Civil Courts adjudicates upon a multiple nature of suits and proceedings, it is not possible to define jurisdiction in one single statute. It is because of this reason, the jurisdiction of court has to be found from the statute constituting the said court.

In West Bengal, the Civil Courts have been constituted under the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 (Act). As per the Act, the civil courts are divided into four types: 

1. Court of the Munsif;
2. Court of the Assistant District Judge;
3. Court of the Additional District Judge;
4. Court of the District Judge.

The pecuniary jurisdiction is defined in Chapter III of the Act. The pecuniary limits have been enhanced from time to time by the State Government by way of amending the Act.

The Act also empowers the State Government to distribute the territorial limits of each court in consultation with the High Court.

Apart from the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction, the jurisdiction over subject matter of the suit is very important. The subject matter-wise jurisdiction is conferred by different statutes which are administered by the court. The following is the list of such jurisdiction, which is admittedly not exhaustive:

1. Jurisdiction on District Judge in the matter of proceedings under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955;
2. Jurisdiction on District Delegate Court in the matter of Probate Proceedings under the Indian Succession Act, 1925;
3. Jurisdiction on Munsifs in the matter of Pre-emption suits under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955;
4. Jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the District Judge;
5. Jurisdiction on District Judge under the Guardians and Wards Act, etc.

Objection to the jurisdiction

It is a cardinal principle of civil law that all suits have to be instituted at the court of lowest grade competent to try it. Subject to this, all suits in respect to immovable property must be instituted at the court where the property is situated. In case of suit where relief is claimed against any person, must be instituted in the court within the local limits of which the person resides, or carries on business or works for gain.

Section 21 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 specifies that all objections to the jurisdiction of court have to be field in the trial court at the earliest possible opportunity. Sub Section (1) and (2) of Section 21 deal with the territorial and pecuniary jurisdictions of civil courts, respectively. No appellate or revisional court would entertain any objection to the jurisdiction, unless the objection is filed:

• In the court of the first instance;
• At the earliest possible time. In any case, the objection has to be filed before settlement of issue.

The appellate court may entertain objection only when serious prejudice happened due to wrong jurisdiction.

It is expressly provided that in case no objection is raised at the earliest possible opportunity, the objection is deemed to have been waived.

Whether jurisdiction could be conferred on agreement?

In landmark case of Harshad Chamanlal Modi Vs DLF Universal & Ors, Civil Appeal No 2726 of 2000, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with this issue. In that case, the Petitioner (Plaintiff) filed one civil suit in Delhi High Court for recovery of possession of immovable property from the respondent based on a contract which provided exclusive jurisdiction to the Delhi Courts.

When the Defendant filed written statement, they accepted the jurisdiction and as such there was no issue regarding jurisdiction of the court. However, after a period of 8 years, the Defendant applied under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of written statement. On permission, the objection as to the jurisdiction was raised.

On that basis, one issue was formed regarding jurisdiction. On the basis of situs of the property at Gurgaon, it was decided that the Delhi High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Revision application also failed.

In the Hon’ble Supreme Court, one of the arguments was whether it was possible to object to the jurisdiction after settlement of issues particularly in view of Sub-Section (1) and (2) of Section 21 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

The issue of jurisdiction over subject matter stands at a different footing than that of territorial and pecuniary jurisdictions. Section 21 of CPC makes a waiver of such jurisdictions once the time for filing objection is over. The territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction does not go to the root of the case unless it is shown that serious prejudice has been caused due to wrong application of jurisdiction.

However, the jurisdiction over the subject matter goes to the root of the matter. If the court does not have any jurisdiction over the subject matter, the suit cannot proceed. If the suit is instituted in such a court the proper course of action would be to return the plaint for its presentation at the proper court.

Secondly, the Hon’ble Court also decided that by agreement of the parties, jurisdiction cannot be conferred on a court which is otherwise not possessed of it. In case of suit for recovery of immovable property, the proper court would be the court within whose local limits the property is situated. If the parties to the agreement have made a contract giving exclusive jurisdiction to the court of a place which does not have any jurisdiction over the subject, the clause would be invalid as against public policy, Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.