Place of Suing in CPC

The “place of suing” concept pertains to the trial’s location and is addressed in sections 15-21 of the CPC (Code of Civil Procedure). Each Court possesses its specific jurisdiction based on monetary and geographical factors. As per Section 15 of the CPC, the lawsuit should be initiated at the Court with the lowest grade empowered to handle it.

What is the Place of Suing in CPC?

Place of suing in CPC refers to where a lawsuit or legal action should be initiated or filed. It specifies the jurisdiction and venue where the case should be brought before a court. 

The provisions regarding the place of suing are outlined in the Code of Civil Procedure to ensure that the appropriate Court with the necessary jurisdiction is chosen for the efficient and fair resolution of the dispute. 

The rules and guidelines related to the place of suing help determine which Court is competent to hear and decide a particular case based on factors such as the nature of the case, the subject matter, the geographical location of the parties involved, and other relevant considerations.

Provisions for Place of Suing under CPC

The place of suing in CPC is discussed under Sections 15 to 20. Section 15 pertains explicitly to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. Sections 16 to 18 address suits concerning immovable property, Section 19 covers suits related to compensation for wrongs and movable property, and Section 20 deals with suits concerning other matters.

Section 15: Place of Suing Based on Pecuniary Basis

Section 15 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908- “Court in which suits to be instituted”-“Every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it”

Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure states that every lawsuit should be initiated in the Court of the lowest grade with the competence to handle it. This requirement aims to prevent overburdening of higher courts. While a judgment passed by a higher-grade court remains valid, a decree passed by an incompetent court would be considered void.

Therefore, a higher court decree cannot be passed without jurisdiction, as clarified by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Gopal v. Shamrao (1941).

Section 15 serves two primary purposes:

• Reducing the workload of higher courts.
• Providing convenience to the parties and witnesses involved in such lawsuits.

The jurisdiction of a court under Section 15 is determined based on the valuation stated by the plaintiff in the lawsuit, rather than the final amount for which the Court will pass the decree.

Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan (1954)

In the case of Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan (1954), a bench comprising Justices Aiyyar and T.L. Venkatarama considered the application of Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887. This provision, along with Sections 21 and 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is founded on the principle that once a case has been fully heard and a judgment has been pronounced, it should not be overturned solely on technical grounds unless there has been a miscarriage of justice.

Mazhar Husain And Anr. v. Nidhi Lal (1885)

In the case of Mazhar Husain and Anr. v. Nidhi Lal (1885), heard by the Allahabad High Court before India’s independence, elucidates the objectives of Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. These objectives, as observed in the case, are as follows:

• Avoiding overburdening higher-grade courts with an excessive number of suits.
• Providing convenience to the parties and witnesses involved in such suits.

Tara Devi v. Sri Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj (1987)

In the case of Tara Devi v. Sri Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj (1987), the defendant raised a preliminary objection regarding the valuation of the suit and questioned the Court’s authority to hear the case in their written statement. The Trial Court determined that the valuation of the suit fell under Section 7(IV)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, and that the plaintiff had correctly assessed the leasehold interest of the lessee. The Trial Court concluded that the plaintiff had the right to determine the value of the relief sought, which was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. Consequently, it was decided that the plaintiff had accurately assessed the claim and paid the appropriate court fees.

In upholding the trial court’s decision, the Supreme Court of India noted that disregarding objective valuation criteria and assigning a value to the relief sought can be arbitrary and irrational. In such cases, the Court is justified in intervening.

Section 16 to 20: Place of Suing Based on Territorial Aspects 

When examining the territorial jurisdiction of a court, it is important to consider the following four types of suits:

Suits related to immovable property: These are governed by Sections 16-18 of the Code of Civil Procedure. These sections outline the rules and guidelines for filing suits concerning disputes over immovable property.

Suits related to movable property: Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure pertains to suits involving movable property. It lays down the provisions for filing suits related to disputes over movable assets.

Suits related to compensation for wrongs: Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure also covers suits concerning compensation for wrongs. This section provides guidelines for filing suits seeking compensation for injuries or damages caused by wrongful acts.

Other suits: Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with suits that fall outside the specific categories mentioned above. It encompasses suits that do not fit into the scope of immovable property, movable property, or compensation for wrongs.

Place of Suing for Matters Involving Immovable Property (Section 16-18)

Section 16

Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 states that suits related to specific types of claims concerning immovable property should be instituted in the Court within the local jurisdiction where the property is situated. These types of suits include:

• Recovery of immovable property with or without rent or profits,
• Partition of immovable property,
• Foreclosure, sale, or redemption in the case of a mortgage or charge on immovable property,
• Determination of any other right or interest in immovable property,
• Compensation for wrong to immovable property,
• Recovery of movable property that is currently under distraint or attachment.

However, there is a provision that if a suit seeks relief or compensation for wrong to immovable property held by or on behalf of the defendant. The relief can be entirely obtained through the defendant’s obedience, the suit can be filed either in the Court within the jurisdiction where the property is situated or in the Court within the jurisdiction where the defendant resides, carries on business, or works for gain voluntarily and effectively.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

Subject-matter jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court to hear and decide cases based on the nature of the issues involved. Different courts are granted jurisdiction over specific types of lawsuits to handle diverse legal matters. For instance, matters related to insolvency, probate, divorce, and similar issues cannot be adjudicated by a court of civil judges of the junior division. If a court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over a particular case, any decree or judgment issued by that Court is considered null and void.

Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 allows invoking jurisdiction in five specific types of suits, which are as follows:

• Partition of immovable property
• Recovery of immovable property
• Torts to immovable property
• Determination of any right or interest in the property

Sale, foreclosure, or redemption regarding a mortgage or charge on immovable property

In the case of Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd. (2005), the Supreme Court held that an action could be filed under Section 16 of the CPC, 1908, in the jurisdiction where the immovable property is located, regardless of factors such as the location of the cause of action or the residence of the parties. In that particular case, since the immovable property was in Gurgaon (Haryana), the Delhi High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.

Section 17 of the CPC

Section 17 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 states, “Suits for immovable property situate within the jurisdiction of different Courts”.

In cases where the immovable property is situated within the local jurisdiction of different courts if a lawsuit is filed seeking compensation or relief for wrongs caused to the immovable property, it can be brought before any court within the jurisdiction where a portion of the property is located. However, it is important to note that the Court hearing the case will have cognizance over the entire claim, considering the significance of the subject matter of the suit.

Section 18

Section 18 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 deals with “Place of institution of suit where local limits of jurisdiction of Courts are uncertain”.

(1) Where it is alleged to be uncertain within the local limits of the jurisdiction of which of two or more Courts any immovable property is situate, any one of those Courts may, if satisfied that there is ground for the alleged uncertainty, record a statement to that effect, and thereupon proceed to entertain and dispose of any suit relating to that property, and its decree in the suit shall have the same effect as the property situated within the local limits of its jurisdiction:

Provided that the suit is one with respect to which the Court is competent as regards the nature and value of the suit to exercise jurisdiction.

(2) Where a statement has not been recorded under sub-section (1), and an objection is taken before an Appellate or Revisional Court at a decree or order in a suit relating to such property was made by a Court not having jurisdiction where the property is situate, the Appellate or Revisional Court shall not allow the objection unless in its opinion there was, at the time of the institution of the suit no reasonable ground for uncertainty as to the Court having jurisdiction with respect thereto and there has been a consequent failure of Justice.

When there is uncertainty regarding the local jurisdiction of courts in relation to immovable property, a court can record a statement and proceed with the case. The decree issued by that Court will be effective as if the property was within its jurisdiction. However, suppose no statement is recorded and an objection is raised before a higher court. In that case, the objection will only be entertained if there is no reasonable ground for uncertainty when filing the suit, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd. (1971)

In the case of Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd. (1971), the Supreme Court of India dealt with the issue of how the trial of a suit should proceed when multiple courts have jurisdiction over it. The defendant, a firm incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, had its main place of business in Bombay and had entered into a contract with the plaintiff that included a provision for arbitration and specified that disputes would be resolved exclusively in Bombay courts. The plaintiff objected to this restriction, arguing that it was against public policy.

The observations made by the Supreme Court, in this case, are as follows:

Section 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, incorporates the entire Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for actions under the Act. Therefore, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 governs the jurisdiction of courts to consider arbitration proceedings and issue awards under the Arbitration Act, 1940.

Under Section 20(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the respondent company, with its major place of business in Bombay, can be sued in the courts of Bombay.

Parties cannot confer jurisdiction on a court through an agreement if the Code of Civil Procedure does not confer such jurisdiction. However, if two courts have jurisdiction to try a suit under the Code, an agreement between the parties that the dispute be handled in one of those courts is not against public policy.

The agreement between the parties, stipulating that the courts in Bombay alone shall have jurisdiction to try the arbitration proceedings, is binding since the courts in Bombay possess jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in this matter.

In summary, the Supreme Court held that the agreement between the parties, conferring jurisdiction on the courts in Bombay to handle the arbitration proceedings, was valid and enforceable as the Bombay courts had jurisdiction as per the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

M/s. Exl Careers and Another v. Frankfinn Aviation Services Private Limited (2020) 

In the case of M/s. Exl Careers and Another v. Frankfinn Aviation Services Private Limited (2020), the Supreme Court of India examined the language of Order VII Rule 10-A in comparison to the language used in Section 24(2) and Section 25(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court noted that there is a difference in the discretion provided to the Court under Sections 24(2) and 25(3), which allows for the retrial or continuation of proceedings from the point of transfer or withdrawal. On the other hand, the scheme outlined in Order VII Rule 10 along with Rule 10-A does not grant such discretion. Instead, the proceedings must begin anew.

This observation by the Apex Court highlights the contrasting approaches between the provisions of Section 24(2) and Section 25(3) that enable the Court to retry or continue proceedings, and the requirement under Order VII Rule 10, including Rule 10-A, where the proceedings must commence afresh.

Place of Suing in CPC for Matters Involving Immovable Property (Section 19)

Section 19 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 deals with “Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables”.

In cases where a suit involves compensation for a wrong done to a person or movable property, if the wrong occurred within the jurisdiction of one Court and the defendant resides, carries on business, or personally works for gain within the jurisdiction of another court, the plaintiff has the option to file the suit in either of the mentioned courts.

For instance, if Raj, who resides in Kolkata, commits a wrongful act against Suraj, who resides in Gujarat, Suraj can choose to file the lawsuit in either the Court in Kolkata or the Court in Gujarat, but not in a third unrelated court like Delhi. This provision allows the plaintiff to select the Court based on their convenience or strategic considerations when the wrong and the defendant’s location fall under different court jurisdictions.

Section 20: Place of Suing in CPC for Other Suits

Section 20 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 deals with “Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises”

“Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction-

(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or

(b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

Explanation I.-Where a person has a permanent dwelling at one place. Also, a temporary residence at another place, he shall be deemed to reside at both places in respect of any cause of action arising at the place where he has such temporary residence.

Explanation II.-A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in {Subs. by Act 2 of 1951, s.3, for “the States”.} [India] or, in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place.”

Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a residuary section that addresses situations where the cause of action arises from a breach of contract or business transactions. According to this section, if there is a breach of contract or a cause of action within the jurisdiction of one Court, or if the defendant voluntarily resides, carries on business, or works for personal benefit within the jurisdiction of another court, the plaintiff has the option to file the suit in either of those courts.

For example, let’s consider a scenario where Rohit, a clothing manufacturer, is based in Sonepat, and Sonam, a clothing retailer, is based in Gandhinagar. Through her agent, who resides in Bangalore, Sonam enters into a transaction with Rohit. In such a case, the suit can be filed either in Sonepat, where the cause of action originated, or in Gandhinagar, where Sonam resides.

Section 20 provides flexibility to the plaintiff by allowing them to choose the Court that is most convenient or beneficial for their case when the cause of action or the defendant’s location falls under the jurisdiction of different courts.

Section 21: Objections to Jurisdiction for Place of Suing

Section 21 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 “Objections to Jurisdiction”

“No objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.”

Conclusion

The concept of the place of suing in CPC pertains to where a lawsuit should be instituted or filed. It is essential to determine the appropriate Court with the necessary jurisdiction and venue to resolve the dispute efficiently. The CPC provides provisions and guidelines to identify the Court of competent jurisdiction based on factors such as the case’s nature, the parties’ geographical location, and the subject matter. Section 15 of the CPC emphasizes that a suit must be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to handle it, thus preventing the overburdening of higher courts. 

Sections 16 to 20 of the CPC further clarify the specific situations where suits related to immovable property, compensation for wrongs, or other matters should be filed—additionally, Section 18 addresses cases where the local limits of jurisdiction are uncertain. 

The interpretation of these provisions by the Supreme Court has provided insights into the significance of subject-matter jurisdiction, objections related to territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction, and the relevance of waivers and dispute resolution methods like arbitration.