Place of
Suing:
S.15
to 21 CPC deals with the Court in which
a suit is to be instituted, as follows:
S.15 Court in which suits to be
instituted
S.16 Suits
to be instituted where subject matter situate
S.17 Suits
for immovable property situate within jurisdiction of different Courts
S.18 Place of institution of suit
where local limits of jurisdiction of Courts are uncertain
S.19 Suits
for compensation for wrongs to person or movables
S.20 Other
suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises
S.21 Objections
to jurisdiction
S.15 Court in which suits to be instituted
Every
suit shall be instituted in the Court of lowest grade competent to try it. Here
competency refers to pecuniary jurisdiction, which shall be determined by High
Court from time to time.
Objects: the
main objects of the section is :
-> To
reduce the burden of the higher Courts
-> Afford
convenience to the parties and witnesses who may be examined by them in such
suits.
The District Judge and Sub-Ordinate
Judges all have jurisdiction over all Original Suits., cognizable by the Civil
Court subject to the condition suits are to be instituted in a Court of lowest
grade competent to try it.
S.16 Suits
to be instituted where subject matter situate
Subject
to pecuniary and other limitations prescribed by any law, suits for:
1) Recovery
of immoveable property with or without rents and profits,
2) Partition
of immoveable property,
3) Foreclosure,
sale, redemption in cases of mortgage or charge upon immoveable property,
4) Determination
of any other right or interest in immoveable property,
5) Compensation
of wrong to immoveable property,
6) Recovery
of moveable property actually under attachment,
Shall be instituted in Court, within the
local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate. It is also provided
that
-
When suit is filed t
obtain relief respecting or compensating any wrong to any immoveable property,
-
And relief can be
entirely obtained through personal obedience.
In above case, the suit can be
instituted either at
·
Court within whose
local limit the property is situated.
·
Court within whose
local jurisdiction the defendant voluntarily resides or conducts business or
trade.
Anand
Bazaar Patrika V Biswanath Prasad
Held
a suit for Specific performance for, contract of sale with possession, it has
to be instituted in the Court in whose jurisdiction the property is situated
and can not be filed where cause of action arises.
Seetha
Rama Chetty V Kamala Amma
In
a suit filed in Bangalore for a property located in Tamilnadu, to determine
right and interest in the immoveable property, Court held that as long as the
defendant is residing within the jurisdiction of Bangalore Court, where the
suit is instituted, the suit was maintainable under S.16(d) read with the
proviso.
S.17 Suits
for immovable property situate within jurisdiction of different Courts
Where
the subject matter of the suit, immoveable property, is situated within the local
jurisdiction of two or more different Courts, the suits may be instituted in
any Court, within whose local jurisdiction, a portion of the property is
situated, and Court is competent to adjudicate over entire suit property, not
just portion situated in its jurisdiction.
S.18 Place of institution of suit
where local limits of jurisdiction of Courts are uncertain
When
it is uncertain as regards under which of the two or more Courts, the
territorial jurisdiction falls into, and one of such Courts has also
ascertained such uncertainty, then it may proceed to entertain and dispose the
suit related to the property; after recording the existence of such
uncertainty.
Where
no such statement has been recorded and objection is raised in appeal or
revision, the Higher Court will not allow such objection unless
=>
At time of institution of suit, no reasonable ground for uncertainty as to Court was there, and,
=>
It has resulted in consequent failure of justice.
In these cases, apart from the uncertain
territorial jurisdiction, the Court should be competent as regards
-> nature
of suit -> pecuniary jurisdiction.
S.19 Suits
for compensation for wrongs to person or movables
In
case of wrong to person or moveables :-
=>
In place where Cause of Action arose
=>
In place where the defendant ordinarily resides or carries business or
personally works for gain.
Eg
Defendant Hits Plaintiff
A --------------------------> B
Madras Delhi Delhi <= Place of Residence/Occurrence
Cause of action lies in Delhi, so can
sue in Delhi. The defendant resides in Madras, so can sue in Madras.
S.20 Other
suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises
Subject
to afore said limitations, i.e Ss 15 to 19,every suit shall be instituted in
Court within whose local limits of jurisdiction:-
-
Defendant(s) at time of commencement of suit actually or voluntarily resides
carries business or trade or personally works for gain.
-
any of the defendant ( if more than one) at time of commencement of suit actually
or voluntarily resides carries business or trade or personally works for gain,
provided (a) Court gives leave to do so
(b) Defendants who don’t reside there accept.
-
Where cause of action arises.
For the purpose of S. 20, it is deemed
that a Corporation carries on its business at its
-
Sole/ Principal office.
-
Sub-Ordinate Office, if cause of action arose at such location.
Eg
A resides in Shimla, B resides in
Calcutta , C resides in Delhi. A B and C together in Benaras , and B and C together
execute a joint promissory note payable on demand and delivered it to A in
Benaras.
A may sue B and C at (A) Benaras where
Cause of Action.
(B)
Calcutta or Delhi where A/B resides provided other defendant accepts or Court
grants leave.
Patel
Roadways V Parsad Trading Company 1992
Where
defendant has Principal Office at one place and Sub Ordinate office at another,
and Cause of Action arose, in place where the subordinate office is located,
then the place of subordinate office where cause of action arose is the relevant
place for filing the suit and not the place where principal office is located. Held,
that, the explanation to S.20 provides an alternative locus for corporation’s
place of business and not an additional one.
ABC
Lamnart Private Ltd V AP Agencies
Held,
the jurisdiction of Court in matter of contract will depend on the situs of
contract and Cause of Action arising through connecting factors. Further held,
the parties may agree to vest jurisdiction in one of the many competent Court
and such Ouster Clause is valid if
-
the clause is explicit , precise and unambiguous.
-
not hit by Ss. 23 and 28 of Indian Contract Act.
S.21 Objections
to jurisdiction
No
objection as to place of suing is allowed in any Appellate or Revisionary Court
, unless
-
such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest
possible opportunity.
-
in cases where settlement is arrived, at or before, such settlement and
-
there has been a consequent failure of justice.
No objection as to competence of Court
as to pecuniary jurisdiction will be allowed at any appellate or revisionary
Court unless, conditions mentioned above are satisfied.
No objection as to competence of executing
Court will be allowed unless
-
such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest
possible opportunity and,
-
there has been a consequent failure of justice.
RSDV
Finance Company Ltd V Shree Vallabh Glass Works 1993
Where
in respect of a suit the two conditions namely
1)such
objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity.
2) in cases where settlement is
arrived, at or before, such settlement ,
are satisfied and the third condition namely
3) there has been a consequent
failure of justice, has not been satisfied, it was HELD that Court would not be justified in allowing
objection to jurisdiction of Court in appeal.
