NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA, CUTTACK

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PROJECT

TOPIC- OBJECTIONS TO JURISDICTION UNDER THE CODE OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE (CPC)

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF: PROF. DR. RASHMI REKHA BAUGH

B.A.LL.B.(Hons.)
SEMESTER IV
BATCH 2023-2028

SUBMITTED BY: -
SATVIK DASH (23BA085)
PRITAM NAYAK (23BA069)

PLAGIARISM-15%
WORDS - 5299

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS

REASEARCH QUESTIONS.....................................................................................................3
REASEARCH OBJECTIVES....................................................................................................3
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................4
JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURTS UNDER CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908..............................6
TYPES OF JURISDICTIONS...................................................................................................8
JURISDICTIONAL CLAUSE IN CONTRACTS-.................................................................................10
S.21 OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION............................................................................................11
OBJECTION AS TO TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION.........................................................................11
OBJECTION AS TO PECUNIARY JURISDICTION............................................................................13
OBJECTION AS TO SUBJECT-MATTER.........................................................................................13
DELVING INTO SECTION 21 OF CPC...................................................................................14
CASE LAWS......................................................................................................................15
HARSHAD CHIMAN LAL MODI V. DLF UNIVERSAL & ANR..........................................................15
ONGC V. UTPAL KUMAR BASU .................................................................................................16
KIRAN SINGH V. CHAMAN PASWAN.........................................................................................17
HRIDAY NATH ROY VS RAM CHANDRA.....................................................................................18
PATHUMMA V. KUNTALAN KUTTY............................................................................................18

2
REASEARCH QUESTIONS

1. How does Section 21 of the CPC regulate objections to jurisdiction?

2. What is the role of jurisdictional clauses in contracts, and how are they enforced
under Indian law?
3. How have Indian courts interpreted jurisdictional objections in landmark cases like
Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan or Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal?
4. What are the implications of jurisdictional objections on the efficiency of the Indian
judiciary?
5. How do jurisdictional issues impact access to justice for litigants?

REASEARCH OBJECTIVES

This project aims to analyze the concept of jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure
(CPC) and its significance in civil litigation, highlighting how jurisdiction determines the
authority of courts to adjudicate disputes. It examines the different types of jurisdictions,
including territorial, pecuniary, and subject-matter jurisdiction, and their legal implications in
ensuring proper forum selection. Furthermore, the study delves into the procedural
framework established under Section 21 of the CPC, which governs the raising and resolution
of jurisdictional objections, emphasizing the conditions under which such objections can be
waived or sustained. Additionally, this research critically analyzes landmark judgments such
as Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan and Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal,
exploring their judicial interpretations and impact on jurisdictional principles in India. By
assessing these elements, the project aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of
jurisdictional objections and their role in shaping procedural justice.

3
INTRODUCTION

The word "jurisdiction" has etymological origins in two Latin words: juris, meaning "law"
and diction, meaning "to speak". The first question that jurisdiction answers is the question of
where to find the proper forum having the power "to speak the law". Black's Law Dictionary
defines jurisdiction as "A court's power to decide a case or make a decree." The justification
for the inclusion of the concept of jurisdiction in legal systems is based on the principle that a
court can only rule and determine such cases which either belong to it or within its territorial
or pecuniary jurisdiction. The content of jurisdiction is drawn from a variety of legal areas,
such as public international law, conflict of laws, constitutional law, and the executive and
legislative powers vested in governments to distribute resources in a way best expressing the
interests of their native people.

Jurisdiction defines the limits within which a court can hear a case or decline to hear it. Since
jurisdiction cannot be defined in the code of civil procedure with any amount of precision,
there is no accepted definition for all; rather, different courts have already defined jurisdiction
as the discretion of the court to hear a case. Thus, jurisdiction essentially defines whether a
court has the right to hear a case or not. A judicial decision in a case outside the jurisdiction
of a court is an abuse of such jurisdiction. The questions resolved under the guise of improper
jurisdiction can be regarded as voidable or void, depending on the particular nature and facts
of such matter.1

A seven-judge Supreme Court bench defined "jurisdiction" in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak2,
holding that jurisdiction is the court's power to act in a case and issue an order that is legally
binding on the facts. However, such authority can only be used when granted by the
Constitution or by legislation passed by the government. Legislators, not the courts, have the
authority to expand and establish a jurisdiction. Because a court cannot grant itself
jurisdiction, any order rendered by a court that lacks inherent jurisdiction would be coram
non judice. The question of whether parties can waive would remain.

1
1 JILI (1958-1959) 331
2
(1988)2SCC602
4
In one of the earliest decisions on Ledgard v. Bull, it was held that consent or waiver may
take away a defect in jurisdiction but not an inherent absence of jurisdiction. Halsbury's Laws
of England is of the view that where by reason of restriction imposed by statute, a court
possesses no inherent jurisdiction, the assent and even express consent of the parties cannot
confer jurisdiction on the court. Again, where an authority assumes to exercise jurisdiction
which it does not possess, its order is a nullity in law. A decision thus by a non-jurisdictional
authority is Non Est and its invalidity can be shown whenever an attempt is made to act on it.
It doesn't really matter if an invalidity claim wasn't brought up right away. The Supreme
Court decisions in Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd3.

In India, civil courts have set boundaries. They can only use their authority to decide civil
cases and give rulings within those boundaries. If a court goes outside its jurisdiction, that's
either a weird use of power or just a lack of it. These courts can hand out punishments like
money fines or temporary/permanent bans.4

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has a bunch of rules that lay out what civil courts in India
can handle. They're super key to the country because they protect people's interests and give
them solutions when things go wrong. They also protect basic rights, figure out what laws
mean, make sure people's rights are enforced, and settle arguments. Basically, civil courts
deal with stuff that's not criminal, and their main job is to settle disagreements.

3
(2005)7SCC791
4
12 JILI (1970) 411
5
JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURTS UNDER CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908

Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, states that

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

Section 9 exclusively addresses the court's jurisdiction to try lawsuits. Before approaching a
civil court, the requirements for filing a lawsuit must be met. The following are the most
significant requirements for the institution of suits:

 Cause of Action- Okay, so the first thing you need to be able to even bring a Civil
Suit is a real, existing cause of action. The cause of action has to be live, not
something that's already over or hasn't even happened yet. That case also says you
can't base a cause of action on something that might or might not happen. If the initial
complaint doesn't show a valid cause of action, the court has to throw it out right
away according to Order 7 Rule 11(a) C.P.C. Also, you can't just file a lawsuit asking
for a temporary order.5

 Right to sue-The general norm is that the presence of a right to sue in court is
presumed, with the exclusion of the same serving as an exception. It has been held as
follows.:

"There is an inherent right in every person to bring a suit of a civil nature and unless the suit
is barred by statute one may, at one's peril, bring a suit of one's choice. It is no answer to a
suit, howsoever frivolous the claim, that the law confers no such right to sue. A suit for its
maintainability requires no authority of law and it is enough that no statute bars the suit."

5
(2004) June PL (Jour) 16
6
OBJECTION AS TO TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION6

There's a clear difference between a court's basic ability to hear a case and where that case is
filed. If a court just flat-out can't handle a certain type of case, that's a fundamental problem
with its power. But where the case should be filed is a different story. Actually, agree to have
a case heard in a place that isn't quite right under the rules. Section 21 of the Code backs this
up. Take the Hira Lal Patni v. Kali Nath 7case even though the lawsuit should've been in
Agra, it ended up in Bombay High Court. The court said that challenging that kind of location
issue falls under Section 21, meaning it could be waived.

“Under Section 21(1), no objection as to the place of suing will be allowed by an appellate or
revisional court unless the following three conditions are satisfying: -
(i) the objection was taken in the court of first instance.
(ii) it was taken at the earliest possible opportunity and in cases where issues are
settled at or before settlement of issues.
(iii) there has been a consequent failure of justice.”

It is widely established that a court that is otherwise incapable to hear a case cannot be
granted jurisdiction by agreement, waiver, or acquiescence. It is also well-established,
therefore, that a court's objection to its local jurisdiction is not equivalent to an objection to
the court's ability to try a matter. The ability of a court to try a matter is fundamental to
jurisdiction; if it is absent, there is an inherent lack of jurisdiction. However, a court may
waive an objection over its local jurisdiction8.

The premise described above is recognized by law under Section 21, which states that the
defect as to the defendant expressly waives the objection and will not be able to raise it again
if he permits the trial court to resolve the case without objecting to the venue of the lawsuit

6
Dutta JP, ‘Objections as to Territorial Jurisdiction Can’t Have Much Impact While Court
Exercises “parens Patriae” Jurisdiction: Orissa High Court’ (Live Law, 26 May 2023)
<https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/orissa-high-court/orissa-high-court-restoration-minor-
custody-father-habeas-corpus-writ-parens-patriae-jurisdiction-229510> accessed 06 March
2025
7
AIR 1962 SC 199
8
2023 SCC OnLine Blog OpEd 121
7
and accepts the possibility of a favorable result 9. One may even argue that, in the right
situation, the defendant's prolonged and unopposed involvement in the proceedings may
constitute a waiver of the objection.10

TYPES OF JURISDICTIONS
Jurisdiction has been classified into various types under which the powers/authority of the
courts to hear and decide the matter are determined. Various types of jurisdictions are: -

● GEOGRAPHICAL/TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
A court's territorial jurisdiction establishes the physical boundaries within which it has the
ability to hear cases and provide decisions. Any case heard outside of the court's geographical
jurisdiction may be deemed invalid or voidable; in other words, the court is not permitted to
use its authority outside of its territorial jurisdiction. When it comes to immovable property,
the geographical jurisdiction is defined in Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
As any attempt to file the issue in an incompetent court would be ineffective from the start
and the party or parties will have to file the case again with a competent court that has
jurisdiction over the subject, it is imperative that the matter be filed in a court of competent
jurisdiction.

● PECUNIARY JURISDICTION
Essentially pecuniary is 'relating to money'. Thus, pecuniary jurisdiction refers to the
competency of courts to hear and determine the matter on its pecuniary or monetary value.
Each court has its specific pecuniary jurisdiction under which it is entitled to exercise powers.
The pecuniary jurisdiction is predetermined and therefore lightens the burden of the higher
courts.
● SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
Whether they are civil courts, criminal courts, family courts, electrical tribunals, or
commercial courts, each court has a distinct subject area in which it is set up to hear the case
at hand. Every court has the authority to hear cases and provide decisions solely on that topic;
it is not permitted to hear cases pertaining to other subjects. Any criminal case may be

9
1 NMIMS L Rev (2021) 180
10
AIR1966HP77
8
brought in a civil court, but it would be considered unmaintainable under the law and would
be dismissed. Civil courts are only supposed to hear civil concerns.

● ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
The ability of a court to make a decision for the first time, or for new matters, is known as
any jurisdiction in an original case. Every court has the authority to try and determine a case
under its original jurisdiction. The courts may convene hearings, record and consider
evidence, and decide factual and legal disputes while executing this authority. In this way,
hearing cases and rendering decisions is the judiciary's most basic authority. Articles 32 and
131 of the Indian Constitution of 1950 grant the Supreme Court of India original jurisdiction.

● APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Appellate jurisdiction indicates the competence of a court in hearing the matter decided
earlier by subordinate court(s). This is the jurisdiction exercised by the above courts to rectify
the error or correct the mistake or prevent any injustice that may have been done by the
subordinate courts. This appellate jurisdiction is only exercisable by the supreme court and
high courts.

● CONCURRENT JURISDICTION
Concurrent jurisdiction occurs when, in respect of a single and particular matter, two or more
courts concurrently possess jurisdiction, i.e., all of these courts may try and/or decide the
matter. In this case, the parties may choose to file the matter in any competent court that is
favorable or nearby to them.
● EQUITABLE JURISDICTION
Equitable jurisdiction enables a court to entertain and adjudicate a matter when the situation
demands a resolution of a question not within the jurisdiction provided by law. In these cases,
the court makes an equitable decision by means of justice, with good and concise intentions.
This jurisdiction empowers the courts to hear issues already laid down and create new
statutes.11

11
(Code of civil procedure - chapter 3 - jurisdiction of civil courts)
<http://student.manupatra.com/Academic/Abk/Code-of-Civil-Procedure/Chapter3.htm>
accessed 07 March 2025
9
Order 23 Rule 1(4) of The CPC prohibits the filing of a new litigation if an earlier suit is
abandoned or withdrawn without permission to do so-

“Rule 1(4). Where the plaintiff-

 abandons any suit or part of claim under sub-rule (1), or

 withdraws from a suit or part of a claim without the permission referred to in sub-
rule (3) he shall be liable for such costs as the Court may award and shall be
precluded from instituting any fresh suit in respect of such subject – matter or such
part of the claim.”

Order 23 Rule 3-A of the C.P.C. provides that no suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the
ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful.

JURISDICTIONAL CLAUSE IN CONTRACTS-

Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, states that Agreements in restraint of legal
proceedings are void. It further states that every agreement, —

 “by which any party thereto is restricted absolutely from enforcing his rights under
or in respect of any contract, by the usual legal proceedings in the ordinary tribunals,
or which limits the time within which he may thus enforce his rights; or

 which extinguishes the rights of any party thereto, or discharges any party thereto,
from any liability, under or in respect of any contract on the expiry of a specified
period so as to restrict any party from enforcing his rights, is void to that extent.”

These consequences ensue because the subject or cause of action did not and could not arise
from a contract to which the opposing party was not a party. Recognition cannot be
considered grounding for an agreement to apply jurisdiction or where only one party
transcends the inherent jurisdiction of a particular court to pursue his benefits. It is an illegal
agreement provided in the Indian Contract Act; it is entitled to be declared void under Section
2 of the Indian Contract Act on grounds of public policy. Even knowing a wrong done to all
parties to a contract. Therefore, in such cases, mutual consent between the solution of a
problem will be against public policy only regarding the extent to which it will enable one of
the parties to apply to the court and thereby obtain an order against the other one. The parties

10
may agree to which one of those courts shall try such disputes. However, no agreement shall
confer upon any court any jurisdiction which it has no jurisdiction to entertain.

In Raigarh Textiles and Jute Mills Ltd. v. New Haryana Transport Company 12, it
has been said that The parties' consensual agreement to choose one of numerous courts
available to try the claim shall not be against public policy. From the argument, Jurisdiction
clauses offer only that entitlement for the parties where, by their conduct after the selection, it
could reasonably be inferred that they intended to give effect to the contract concerned,
perhaps unless the jurisdiction clause is one where a cause of action arose almost entirely or
in another jurisdiction and that it would be oppressive to summon the parties to their chosen
forum in the light of those factors.

S.21 OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION

In civil litigation, jurisdictional objections are among the most frequently proffered objection,
hence what does this mean? In its most fundamental sense, jurisdiction can refer to a court's
power or authority to hear and determine an issue. Any judgment made by a court
incompetent or lacking jurisdiction will simply be a nullity and would stand vitiated.
Although the decree's validity can be challenged, that objection concerning jurisdiction can
be raised even at the belated stages of proceedings, whether in appeal or execution. "The
Court cannot derive jurisdiction apart from the statue; it is herein that the concept of 'coram
non judice' also requires attention". As opposed to the grand standard of justice, Coram non
judice, is a Latin maxim to the notion that the trial is not before a judge with authority to hear
and decide the matter.

OBJECTION AS TO TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

It is clearly established that the ground of local or territorial jurisdiction of the court (so-
called place of suing) is different from that of judicial competence. Competence to adjudicate
a case is an essential part of jurisdiction, and absence of it amounts to lack of jurisdiction per
se. By contrast, an objection to local jurisdiction may be waived, and this principle has been
acknowledged under Section 21 of the Code. In Hira Lal v. Kali Nath, on the other hand,
When an action that should have been filed at Agra was permitted to be lodged in the

12
1994 MPLJ 626
11
Bombay High Court, it was specifically decided that the objection to such jurisdiction was
subject to Section 21.

“According to Section 21(1), an appellate or revisional court will not entertain objections
regarding the place of suing unless three conditions are met:
1) The objection was raised in the court of first instance.
2) It was raised at the earliest possible opportunity, including cases where issues are
settled at or before the settlement of issues.
3) There has been a consequent failure of justice.
All three conditions must be satisfied simultaneously for the objection to be considered
valid.”13

An objection that pertains to the local jurisdiction of a court, however, is

distinguishable from an objection that questions the competence of a court to try a case. Court
competence to hear a case is a subject matter of jurisdiction, and where it is absent, there
exists an inherent lack of jurisdiction. By contrast, the objection to local jurisdiction may be
waived; as articulated in Section 21, defects on the laying of suits as mentioned in Sections
15 to 20 may be waived. If the defendant permits the trial court to continue with the case
without raising an objection on the pecuniary jurisdiction regarding the place of suing and
takes a chance on winning the case, then the defendant will be considered to have waived any
objections. Continuous acquiescence by the defendant in the proceedings, in some scenarios,
could amount to a waiver of that objection as well. Section 21 is succinctly justified by the
Supreme Court's observation in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan14:

"Once a judgment is delivered by a court after a trial, thereafter it should seldom be set aside
on mere technicalities unless there is a miscarriage of justice. The legislature has, therefore,
intended that every objection on the ground of either pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction is
technical and not to be agitated before an appellate court unless it has caused prejudice on
the merits."

13
2021 SCC OnLine Blog OpEd 142
14
AIR 1954 SC 340

12
 That said, it must be noted that a challenge to the place of suing is not barred by
Section 21 in a higher court or in revision if there is no decision on the merits by the trial
court.

OBJECTION AS TO PECUNIARY JURISDICTION

Generally, there is the principle that the valuation as made by the plaintiff in the plaint will
determine the jurisdiction as opposed to the value that the court ultimately may decree. Once
a defendant contests a plaintiff's valuation, it then becomes the task of a trial court to get into
that and make an appropriate determination.

Yet, objections regarding overvaluation or undervaluation will not be entertained by any

appellate or revisional court unless three conditions are met:
1) The objection was raised in the court of first instance.
2) It was raised at the earliest possible opportunity, including cases where issues are
settled, at or before the settlement of issues.
3) There has been a resulting failure of justice.
All three conditions must be met concurrently for the objection to be considered valid.

The meaning evidently is that in such cases the appellate court can review decrees if and only
if the prejudice referred to is one that results from the definition contained in this section.
Therefore, the prejudice considered by the section must extend beyond the mere change in
forum for an appeal."

OBJECTION AS TO SUBJECT-MATTER
The objection concerning the subject-matter of jurisdiction is crucial, as it pertains to
whether prejudice has occurred, a determination left to the discretion of the court. A court
cannot rightfully adjudicate upon a subject-matter that falls outside the scope defined by law.

Jurisdiction over the subject-matter of a suit is deemed essential, serving as a prerequisite or

sine qua non for acquiring authority over both the parties and the matter at hand. If a court
lacks jurisdiction over the subject-matter, any judgement, order, or decree issued is inherently
null and void. Such a decision may be overturned in appeal, review, or revision, and its
validity can be challenged even in collateral proceedings.

13
DELVING INTO SECTION 21 OF CPC

Section 21 of the Civil Procedure Code is critical in addressing arguments to jurisdiction.

In-depth research of Section 21 states that an objection based on jurisdictional grounds
regarding the filing location cannot be submitted in the appeal or revisional stages unless it is
raised as soon as feasible in the court of first instance. It further stipulates that for such
arguments to be accepted at the appellate level, a "failure of justice" is required.
Fundamentally, the section emphasizes the urgency and relevance of jurisdictional
arguments.15

Background and Justification

Historically, litigation in India, like in many other jurisdictions, has been marked by
significant delays, with cases often dragging on for years. One strategy used by parties,
particularly those on the defense, was to raise jurisdictional concerns at a later time, resulting
in additional delays. Section 21 was designed to avoid such methods, and it requires parties to
promptly express any valid concerns they may have about jurisdiction. Comparing to CPC's
Related Sections: Other sections of the CPC cover jurisdictional difficulties, however Section
21 concentrates solely on concerns about the place of litigation.

For example, unless otherwise specified, Section 9 upholds civil courts' wide authority to
hear all types of civil disputes. According to Section 15, all cases must be filed in the lowest
tier court that is capable of hearing them. Section 20 specifies which courts must hear
litigation based on the defendant's residency or the area where the cause of action started.

15
AIR 2004 SC 2154

14
CASE LAWS
HARSHAD CHIMAN LAL MODI V. DLF UNIVERSAL & ANR16

Facts

On August 14, 1985, the appellant entered into a property Buyer Agreement with DLF
Universal Limited for a residential property in Gurgaon. The deal was purportedly signed in
Delhi, where payments were apparently paid. However, on April 4, 1988, the respondent
unilaterally terminated the agreement based on purported nonpayment. The appellant
contested this, issuing a legal notice; nonetheless, the respondent upheld the cancellation.

The appellant then filed a lawsuit in the Delhi High Court, which issued an interim
injunction. The defendants first acknowledged Delhi's jurisdiction, but after eight years filed
an amendment to contest it. The trial court finally decided to transfer the matter, and the
appellant's plea to the Delhi High Court was dismissed.

The appellant petitioned the Supreme Court, which originally delayed the lower court's
decision and authorized proceedings in Delhi while limiting the eventual result. The case is
now set for a final hearing before the Supreme Court.

Issues Involved

Would the Courts in Delhi have jurisdiction with regard to the suit of specific performance of
contract in this case?

Conclusion

The Court considered the jurisdiction provisions of Sections 15-20 of the CPC. It was
observed that Section 16 requires proceedings touching immovable property to be filed where
the property is located, with a provision enabling exclusions depending on the defendant's
personal compliance. However, this exemption is restricted and did not apply in the current
case, which concerned the particular fulfillment of an agreement relating to immovable
property.

16
(2005)7SCC791
15
The Court also emphasized that under Section 21 of the CPC, objections to jurisdiction must
be raised at the earliest stage. Since the defendants initially admitted jurisdiction in their 1989
written statement, the lower courts erred in allowing them to amend their plea later.

While challenges to territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction must be made early on, a court's
order is null and void if subject-matter jurisdiction is not established. Applying this principle,
the Court determined that, despite the defendant's earlier consent to Delhi's jurisdiction, it
could not impart jurisdiction that the Delhi courts lacked essentially. Thus, because the claim
involved property outside of Delhi, the trial court rightly determined that Delhi courts lacked
jurisdiction.

ONGC V. UTPAL KUMAR BASU 17

Facts:
Oil and Natural Gas Commission's (ONGC's) consultant — Engineers India Ltd. (EIL) —
issued a tender, for setting up a unit for ONGC in its gas processing plant at Hazira, Gujarat,
by way of a public advertisement in various newspapers. The offers were to be
communicated to ElL in New Delhi. NICCO, which had its registered office in Calcutta, read
this advertisement in the Times of India newspaper, circulated in Calcutta. The final decision
on the tender was to be taken by a Committee situated in New Delhi.

All bids were scrutinized in New Delhi. NICCO's bid was rejected. Despite NICCO making
subsequent representations before the Committee, there was no change in result. The final
decision was taken in New Delhi, and the tender was awarded to CIMMCO. NICCO filed a
writ petition before the Calcutta High Court challenging the rejection of its bid and on the
plea that a part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the
Calcutta High Court, viz.
(i) that it became aware of the contract on reading the advertisement in Calcutta;
(ii) that it submitted its bid from Calcutta
(iii) on becoming aware of its rejection, it made representations demanding justice
from Calcutta. The Calcutta High Court entertained the petition and directed
ONGC to consider NICCO's bid. This decision was challenged by ONGC
before the Supreme Court.

17
( 1994 ) 4 SCC 711
16
Held
The Supreme Court held that merely because NICCO read the advertisement in Calcutta,
submitted its offer from Calcutta, and made representations from Calcutta, would not
constitute facts forming an integral part of the cause of action. In fact, the execution of the
contract was to be carried out in Gujarat. Moreover, NICCO had not invoked the jurisdiction
of the Calcutta High Court bona fide. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the order of
the Calcutta High Court and disposed of the writ petition for want of jurisdiction and imposed
exemplary costs on NICCO.

KIRAN SINGH V. CHAMAN PASWAN18

The appellants filed a claim at Monghyr's Subordinate Judge's Court, demanding custody of
12 acres and 51 cents of land, as well as profits. They claimed to have been established as
occupation tenants by the landowners (defendants 12 and 13) on April 12, 1943. Defendants
1-11, on the other hand, filed a counter-suit, claiming long-standing possession under a batai
(crop-sharing) system dating back to Fasli 1336, as well as residence rights. The Subordinate
Judge rejected the action, citing rent receipts demonstrating the first party's possession for
more than 12 years. The District Judge affirmed the ruling on appeal.

In the second appeal before the Patna High Court, an objection was submitted over the suit's
undervaluation, resulting in a revised value of Rs. 9,980. The plaintiffs contended that their
appeal should have gone straight to the High Court, bypassing the District Court. However,
applying Ramdeo Singh v. Raj Narain, the High Court concluded that the District Court's
appeal was competent unless prejudice was demonstrated, which was not the case. The
second appeal was rejected.

The Court held that party consent cannot rectify a jurisdictional flaw, whether geographical,
financial, or subject matter. While Section 99 CPC prevents decrees from being modified
owing to minor flaws unless they impair the case's merits, it does not apply in circumstances
where courts lack jurisdiction due to valuation mistakes. To counter this, Section 11 of the
Suits Valuation Act (SVA) prohibits appellate courts from hearing valuation challenges
unless bias can be established. The Court noted that Sections 21 CPC, 99 CPC, and 11 SVA
have a unifying principle: verdicts should not be reversed on technical grounds unless they

18
AIR 1954 SC 340
17
result in a failure of justice. In this case, the Court determined that there was no prejudice
caused by undervaluation because the appeal was treated completely and fairly on its merits.
As a result, it declined to interfere under Section 11 SVA.

HRIDAY NATH ROY VS RAM CHANDRA19

The Calcutta High Court attempted to define 'jurisdiction' in detail. The authority to
hear and decide legal and factual issues, or the authority by which their judicial powers take
knowledge of facts and decide causes, or the authority to hear and decide legal disputes, or
the power to hear and adjudicate the subject matter of a suit between the parties. Any judicial
authority over them, or the capacity to hear, determine, and pronounce judgment on problems
before the court, or the power or authority provided by the government to a court to study and
analyze things between parties and put a decision into effect.
When a lawsuit is filed in court, the first question is whether the court has jurisdiction
in the case. If the court possesses geographical, financial, and subject matter jurisdiction, it
can hear any case. If the court lacks jurisdiction, this will be interpreted as both a lack of
jurisdiction and an inappropriate exercise of authority. When a court lacks jurisdiction to hear
a case, the decision is considered invalid or voidable, depending on the circumstances.

PATHUMMA V. KUNTALAN KUTTY20

A partition suit was filed in the Munsiff Court at Parappanangadi in 1938, which
passed a preliminary decree in 1940. However, no further action was taken for over two
decades. In 1956, the High Court redefined territorial jurisdictions, placing the disputed
property under the Munsiff Court at Manjeri. Based on this, the plaintiff applied for a final
decree in Manjeri Court in 1966. Defendant 12 objected, arguing that only the
Parappanangadi Court had jurisdiction, but the Manjeri Court overruled the objection and
passed the final decree in 1968. On appeal, the District Court upheld the Manjeri Court’s
decision. However, the High Court later ruled that only the Parappanangadi Court had
jurisdiction, setting aside the final decree.
The Supreme Court, considering Section 21(1) of the CPC, held that while the
jurisdictional objection was raised in time, no failure of justice was proven due to the change
in court. Therefore, the High Court and the District Court should not have entertained the

19
ILR 48 Cal 138
20
1981 SCC OnLine SC 309
18
objection. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remanded the case for
a decision on merits within three months. No order as to costs was passed.

19