JURISDICTION OF
CIVIL COURTS
Meaning
Jurisdiction derived from the Latin words
‘jus’, ‘iuris’ meaning "law" and
‘dicere’ or diction meaning “to speak”
In general parlance
It is the practical authority granted
to a formally constituted legal body or to a political leader
to deal with and
make pronouncements on legal matters and, by
implication,
to administer justice
within a defined area of responsibility.
Jurisdiction: Legal parlance
Jurisdiction is defined as the power or authority of
a court, to hear and determine a cause, to
adjudicate and exercise any judicial power in
relation to it.
A court is said to have jurisdiction:
If it has the authority
To take cognizance of the matter
Presented in a formal manner
Hear the parties, and
Decide the matter
Official trustee v/s Sachindra
The Supreme Court has held that “…
before a court can be held to have
jurisdiction to decide a particular matter
it must not only have jurisdiction to try
the suit brought but must also have the
authority to pass the orders sought for.”
Hierarchy of courts in
Karnataka
CIVIL COURTS CRIMINAL COURTS
HIGH COURT HIGH COURT
DISTRICT COURT SESSIONS COURT
Civil Judge Sr. Dn CHIEF Judicial Magistrate
Judicial Magistrate
Civil Judge Jr. Dn First Class
Kinds of jurisdiction
1. Territorial or Local jurisdiction
2. Pecuniary jurisdiction
3. Jurisdiction as to subject matter
4. Original and Appellate jurisdiction
5. Exclusive jurisdiction and Concurrent jurisdiction
6. General and Limited jurisdiction
7. Legal and Equitable jurisdiction
8. Foreign and Municipal jurisdiction
Territorial/Local jurisdiction
Every court has its territorial limits
beyond which it cannot exercise its
jurisdiction.
The limits are fixed by the government.
For example: District judge functions
within his district, not outside.
High court has jurisdiction over the
territory located within the State only.
Pecuniary jurisdiction
Section 6 of the Code provides that a court will have jurisdiction
only over those suits, the amount or value of the subject matter,
of which does not exceed the pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction.
High Courts, District courts and Senior Division courts
have unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction.
Lower courts can try suits only up to a particular value, not
above that. In Karnataka, if the suit value is within Rs. 5,00,000
Civil court( junior division) has got jurisdiction.
Pecuniary jurisdiction decided by Karnataka Civil Courts Act,
1964
The Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act, 1964 – Sec 8 deals with
jurisdiction
Not exceeding 2 lakhs in Bangalore City
Not exceeding 1 lakh in other places.
Jurisdiction as to subject
matter
Different courts are empowered to try
different suits.
The authority of a court to decide a
particular type of case is called subject-
matter jurisdiction.
For example: Family courts, labour courts
etc.
Original and appellate
jurisdiction
Original jurisdiction is where the court
entertains and decides suits in the first
instance.
For example: Courts of civil judges have
original jurisdiction,
Appellate jurisdiction is where the court
entertains and decides appeals.
For example: District courts and High
Courts have both original and appellate
jurisdiction.
Exclusive jurisdiction and Concurrent
jurisdiction
Exclusive jurisdiction
It is where only that court can hear a
specific case.
Concurrent jurisdiction
It is where 2 or more courts have the
original jurisdiction to try the matter.
General and Limited
jurisdiction
General Jurisdiction refers to a court that
holds the authority to hear all types
of cases except those prohibited by the
laws in that state. Case types include civil,
criminal, family, probate, and others.
Limited jurisdiction or special jurisdiction
courts have jurisdiction over minor or less
serious civil and criminal cases.
Legal and equitable jurisdiction
Legal jurisdiction is a jurisdiction exercised by
Common Law Courts in England, while
Equitable jurisdiction is exercised by Equity
Courts.
Indian Courts are both law and equity.
Common Law means precedent or law
created by decisions of the courts.
Equity, on the other hand, is associated with
the principles of fairness and equality.
Municipal and foreign jurisdiction
Municipal/domestic jurisdiction is
exercised by courts in the country.
Foreign jurisdiction is exercised by a
court in a foreign country. The decision
rendered by such a court is a ‘foreign
judgment’.
Lack of jurisdiction and irregular
exercise of jurisdiction
‘Want of jurisdiction’ or ‘lack of jurisdiction’ and
‘irregular exercise of jurisdiction’ are two different things and
result in different consequences.
Jurisdiction denotes the competence and power to entertain
and decide a case.
Want of jurisdiction is where the court completely lacks
having jurisdiction to entertain the case.
Irregular exercise of jurisdiction comes into existence
only after cognizance has been taken by a court of
competent jurisdiction and presupposes the existence
of jurisdiction.
Want of jurisdiction renders all proceedings null and void.
Irregular exercise of jurisdiction only renders the proceedings
liable to be avoided in certain cases.
For eg: It is not possible to hold that a Court hearing a case
on a date earlier than the date fixed for hearing has
no jurisdiction to hear it, although in doing so
it exercises its jurisdiction in an irregular manner.
Consequence of not raising an objection
Here if the party aggrieved does not take appropriate steps to
have the error corrected, the erroneous decree will hold good
and will not be open for challenge on the basis of being a
nullity – Ujjam Bai v/s State of UP
Jurisdiction and Consent
It is well settled that consent cannot confer nor oust
(take away) jurisdiction of a court.
Power to enlarge jurisdiction
The power to create or enlarge jurisdiction is
legislative in character i.e, only the Parliament can alone
do it by law, no court, whether superior or inferior or
both combined can enlarge the jurisdiction of a
court.
Thus the power ONLY lies with the parliament
Neither the Court
Nor the parties
Ram Bahadur Thakur and Co. v/s
Devidayal (Sales) Ltd (AIR 1954 Bom 176)
– it is almost elementary that parties by their
agreement cannot confer jurisdiction nor can
they by their agreement oust the jurisdiction
of the court when the court possesses
jurisdiction. But it is equally well settled that
parties can by a contract prefer one of the 2
competent courts.
To oust jurisdiction of a court completely is
void.
Defect in jurisdiction
A defect in jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter
and strikes at the authority of the court to pass a decree
– Halsbury (a decree without jurisdiction is a nullity).
Such a basic and fundamental defect cannot be cured by
consent of the parties and the judgment or order passed by a
court, however precisely certain and technically correct, is null
and void and the validity thereof can be challenged at any
stage – Vasudev Dhanji bai Modi v/s Rajabhai Abdul
Rehman.
Example: a suit is barred by time, yet the court decrees it.
Here the court commits an illegality and therefore the
aggrieved party is entitled to have the decree set aside by
preferring an appeal against it.
3 points to remember
A defect in jurisdiction goes to the root
of the matter and strikes at the authority
of the court to pass a decree.
Fundamental defect cannot be cured by
consent of the parties.
Can be challenged at any stage.
Exception
This does not, however, apply to
territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction, in as
much as objections to such jurisdiction
are regarded by the Code as merely
technical and, unless raised at the
earliest opportunity, they will not be
entertained in appeal or revision for the
first time – Hira lal v/s Kali nath (Sec
21 CPC – objection as to jurisdiction)
Ananti v/s Channu
If it is found that, on a trial on merits so far as the issue of
jurisdiction goes, that the facts alleged by the plaintiff
are not true and the facts alleged by the defendant
are true, and that the case is not cognizable by the court,
there will be two kinds of orders to be passed.
If the jurisdiction is only one relating to territorial limits or
pecuniary limits, the plaint will be ordered to be returned
for presentation to the proper court.
If on the other hand it is found that, having regard to the
nature of the suit, it is not cognizable by the class of court to
which the court belongs, the plaintiff’s suit will have to be
dismissed in its entirety.”
Thus, where a court has jurisdiction to
decide a dispute, the same cannot be
taken away or ousted by consent of the
parties.
An agreement to oust absolutely the
jurisdiction of the court would be
unlawful, void and against public policy.
2022(2) Apex Court Judgments 183(SC)
Suit instituted before the Revenue
authority was dismissed on the objection
that it has no jurisdiction.
Suit was then filed in the Civil court.
Objection was again raised that civil
court has no jurisdiction.
Held, such a ground is not available to
the defendant when their plea that
Revenue authority is having no
jurisdiction was accepted.
BASIS TO DETERMINE JURISDICTION
To decide the jurisdiction of a civil court,
the averments made in the plaint are
material.
It is decided on the basis of the case put
forward by the plaintiff, and not by the
defendant in his written statement.
Decision as to jurisdiction
WHO DECIDES THE QUESTION AS TO WANT
OF JURISDICTION?
Whenever the jurisdiction of a court is
challenged, the said court has inherent
jurisdiction to decide the said question.
WHEN?
It is determinable at the commencement, not
at the conclusion of the inquiry. It is tried as a
preliminary issue.
*******
