JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURTS

Jurisdiction may be defined to be to be the power of authority of a Court to hear and determine a cause, to adjudicate an exercise any judicial power in relation to it. In Official Trustee Vs Sachindra 1by jurisdiction is meant the authority, which a Court has to decide the matters that are litigated before it or to take cognizance of matters presented in formal way for its decision.

SECTION 9
nder the Code of Ci!il "rocedure , a Ci!il court has jurisdiction to try all suits of ci!il nature unless they are barred. #ection $ of the Code read as under% &'he Court shall (subject to pro!ision herein contained) ha!e the jurisdiction to try all suits of ci!il nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. EXPLANATION I * suit in which the right to property or to any offence is contested is a suit of ci!il nature, notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of +uestions as to religious rites or ceremonies. EXPLANATION II ,or the purpose of this #ection, it is im-material whether or not any fee are attached to the office referred to it .xplanation-1 or whether or not , such office is attached to a particular place.

CONDITIONS
* Ci!il court has the jurisdiction to try a suit if two conditions are fulfilled. a. 'he suit must be of ci!il nature. b. 'he cognizance of such a suit should not ha!e been expressly or impliedly barred. (1) SUIT OF CIVIL NATURE In order that a ci!il court may ha!e jurisdiction to try a suit, the first condition which must be satisfied is that, the suit must of ci!il in nature. 'he word &ci!il/ has not been defined in the court. 0ut according to the dictionary meaning, it pertains
1

*I1 1$23(Calcutta high court)

pri!ate rights and remedies of a citizen as distinguished from criminal, political etc. 'he word &nature/ has been defined as &the fundamental +ualities of a person or a thing, identity or essential character, sort, kind, character/. 'hus, a suit is of ci!il nature if the principle +uestion therein relates to the determination of a ci!il right and enforcement thereof.

NATURE AND SCOPE

'he expression &suit of a ci!il nature/ will co!er pri!ate rights and obligation of a citizen. "olitical and religious +uestions are not co!ered by that expression. * suit in which the principle +uestion relations to cast or religion is not a suit of ci!il nature. 0ut, if the principle +uestion in a suit is of a ci!il nature, the rights to property or to an office and the adjudication incidentally in!ol!es the determination right relating to cast +uestion or to religious rights and ceremonies, it does not cease to be a suit of ci!il nature and the jurisdiction of ci!il court is not barred. In Sinha Ramanuja Vs Ranga Ramanuja, it was held that the Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon those +uestions also in order to decide the principle +uestion, which is of a ci!il nature. .xplanation-II has been added by the amendment act of 1$42. 0efore this explanation, there was a di!ergious of judicial opinion as to whether a suit relating to a religious office to which no fee or emoluments were attached can be said to be a suit of ci!il nature, but, the legal position has now been clarified by explanation 5II which specifically pro!ides that a suit relating to religious office is maintainable whether or not it carries any fee or whether or not it is attached to a particular place.

TEST
* suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of ci!il nature, notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of a +uestion as to religious rites or ceremonies.

SUITS OF CIVIL NATURE

'he following are the suits of ci!il nature% (i) (ii) #uits relating to right to property. #uits relating to right of worship.

(iii) #uits relating to taking out of religious processions. (i!) #uits relating to right to share in offerings.
6

1$21 *I1 1467,1$26 #C1(6) 87$

(!)

#uits for damage for ci!il wrongs.

(!i) #uits for specific performance of contract or for damages for breach of contract. (!ii) #uits for specific relief. (!iii) #uits for restitution of conjugal rights. (ix) #uits for dissolution of marriage. (x) #uits for rent. (xi) #uits for or on accounts. (xii) #uits for rights of franchise. (xiii) #uits for rights to hereditary office (xi!) #uits against wrongful dismissal from ser!ice and from salaries etc.

SUITS NOT OF CIVIL NATURE

(i) #uits in!ol!ing principally caste +uestions. (ii) #uits in!ol!ing purely religious rites or ceremonies. (iii) #uits for up-holding mere dignity or honour. (i!) #uit for reco!ery of !oluntarily payment or offerings. (!) #uits against expulsion from caste etc.

COGNIZANCE NOT BARRED

*s stated abo!e, a litigant ha!ing a grie!ance of a ci!il nature has a right to institute a ci!il suit, unless its cognizance is barred, either expressly or impliedly.

SUIT EXPRESSLY BARRED

* suit is said to be &expressly barred/ when it is barred by any enactment for the time being enforce, matters following within the exclusi!e jurisdiction of re!enue courts or under the Code of Criminal "rocedure or matters dealt with by special 'ribunals under the rele!ant statutes examples , Industrial 'ribunal, .lection 'ribunal, 1e!enue 'ribunal, 1ent 'ribunal, Co-operati!e 'ribunal, Income 'ax 'ribunal, 9otor *ccident Claims tribunal etc or by domestic 'ribunals example 5 0ar Council, 9edical Council, ni!ersity, Club, etc are expressly barred from the cognizance of Ci!il Court. 0ut, in State !f Tamil Nadu Vs Ramalinga :if the remedy pro!ided by a statute is ade+uate and all +uestions cannot be decided by a #pecial 'ribunal, the jurisdiction of Ci!il Court is not barred.

1$23 *I1 4$;,1$38 #C1 #upl.(1)2:

SUIT IMPLIEDLY BARRED

* #uit is said to be impliedly barred when, it is barred by general principles of law. <here a specific remedy is gi!en by a statute, it is thereby depri!es the person who insist upon a remedy or any other form, then gi!en by the statute. In "remier Aut!m!#iles Vs $%S%&ad'e ;the Court held that where an act creates an obligation and enforces its performance in a specific manner, that performance cannot be enforced in any other manner.

WHO MAY DECIDE

It is well settled that a ci!il Court has inherent power to decide its own jurisdiction.

BURDEN OF PROOF
It is well settled that it is for the party who seeks to oust the jurisdiction of a Ci!il Court to establish it. It is e+ually well settled that a statute ousting the jurisdiction of a ci!il court must be strictly construed. <here such a contention is raised, it has to be determined in the light of words used in this statute, the scheme of the rele!ant pro!isions and the object and purpose of the enactment.

EXCLUSION OF JURISDICITION OF CIVIL COURT

,rom the abo!e discussion, it is clear that the jurisdiction of Ci!il Court is all embracing except to the extent it is excluded by law or by clear intendment arising from such law. In the classical decision of (hula#hai Vs State !f )"% 8*fter considering a number of cases, =idayatulla Chief Justice summarized following principles relating to the exclusion of jurisdiction of ci!il court. (*) <here a statute gi!es finality to order of special 'ribunals, the Ci!il Court>s jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there is ade+uate remedy to do what the ci!il courts would normally do it in a suit. (0) <here there is an express bar of jurisdiction of a Court. (C) Challenge to the pro!ision of a particular act as ultra!ires cannot be brought before 'ribunals constituted under the *ct. .!en the =igh Court cannot go into that +uestion on a re!ision or reference from decisions of 'ribunals. (?) <hen a pro!ision is already declared un-constitutional or the constitutionality of any pro!ision if to be challenged, a suit is opens. (.) <here the particular act contains no machinery for refund of tax collected in excess of constitutional limits or is illegally collected, a suit lies.
; 8

*I1 1$48 #C 66:3 *I1 1$2$ #C 43

(,) @uestions of the correctness of an assessment, apart from its constitutionality, are for the decisions of the authorities and a ci!il suit does not lie if the orders of the authorities are declared to be final or there is an express prohibition in a particular act.

IN PREMIER AUTOMOBILES VS K.S.WADKE *

'he #upreme Court laid down the following principles as applicable to the jurisdiction of a ci!il court in relation to Industrial disputes. a. If a dispute is not an industrial dispute, nor does it relate to enforcement of any other right under the act, the remedy lies only in a Ci!il Court. b. If a dispute is an industrial dispute arising out of a right or liability under the general or common law and not under the act, the jurisdiction of ci!il court is alternati!e, lea!ing it to the election of a suitor or person concerned. c. If an industrial dispute relates to the enforcement of a right or an obligation created under the act, then, the only remedy a!ailable to a suitor is to get adjudication under the *ct.

In RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRNASPORT CORPORATION VS KRISHNA KANAR7

*fter considering !arious leading decisions on the point, the #upreme Court #ummarized the principles applicable to industrial disputes. a. <here a dispute arises from the general law of contract, i.e. where reliefs are claimed on the basis of the general law of contract, a suit filed in a ci!il court cannot be said to be not maintainable, e!en though such a dispute may also constitute an &Industrial ?ispute/. b. <here, howe!er, a dispute in!ol!es recognition, obser!ance or enforcement of right an obligations created by the Industrial ?isputes *ct, the only remedy is to approach the ,orums created by the said *ct. c. #imilarly, where a dispute in!ol!es the recognition, obser!ance or enforcement of rights an obligations created by enactments, like the Industrial .mployment *ct, 1$;2, which can be called &#ister .nactments/ to the Industrial ?isputes *ct and which do not pro!ide a ,orum for resolution of such disputes, the only remedy shall be to approach ,orums created by the Industrial ?isputes *ct.

2 4

*I1 1$48 #C 66:3 *I1( 1$$8) : #C1 1113

d. 'he certified standing orders framed in accordance with the Industrial .mployment *ct, 1$;2 are statutorily imposed conditions of ser!ice and are binding both upon employers and employees, though they do not amount to statutory pro!isions.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES
,rom !arious decisions of the #upreme Court, the following general principles relating to jurisdiction of Ci!il Court emergedA 1. * Ci!il Court has the jurisdiction to try all suits of ci!il nature unless their cognizance is barred either expressly or impliedly. 6. Consent can neither confer nor take away jurisdiction of Court. :. * decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity and the !alidity thereof can be challenged at any stage of the proceedings , in execution proceedings or e!en in collateral proceedings. ;. 'here is a distinction between want of jurisdiction and irregular exercise thereof. 8. .!ery Court has inherent power to decide the +uestion of its own jurisdiction. 2. Jurisdiction of Court depends upon the a!erments made in the plaint and not upon the defence in a written statement. 4. ,or deciding jurisdiction of Court, the substance of matter and not its form is important. 3. .!ery presumption should be made in fa!our of jurisdiction of a Ci!il Court. $. * statute ousting jurisdiction of a Court must be strictly construed. 17. 0urden of proof of exclusion of jurisdiction of a Court is on the party who asserts it. 11. .!en where jurisdiction of a Ci!il Court is barred, it can still decide whether the pro!isions of an act ha!e been complied with or whether an order was passed dehors the pro!ision of law.