Types of Jurisdiction under CPC

The concept of jurisdiction is fundamental in understanding how courts operate in any legal system. Jurisdiction refers to the authority granted to a court to hear and decide legal cases. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) lays down the rules that define the jurisdiction of civil courts in India. 

The jurisdiction of a court is classified into different types, each with its own scope and limitations. This article aims to provide a detailed and informative discussion on the various types of jurisdiction under the CPC, 1908, and their implications.

Jurisdiction of Civil Courts under Section 9 of the CPC

Scope of Civil Jurisdiction

Section 9 of the CPC is the foundational provision for understanding the jurisdiction of civil courts in India. It provides that all civil suits shall be triable by civil courts, except those that are expressly or impliedly excluded by law. 

The phrase “civil suit” refers to any case that involves the determination of civil rights and obligations, excluding criminal matters. It is essential to understand the limits and scope of this section for determining the competence of a court to entertain a particular case.

Conditions for Civil Court Jurisdiction

The two essential conditions for a civil court to have jurisdiction over a suit are:

• The suit must be of a civil nature: Any dispute that involves private rights, such as property rights, contract disputes, or torts, falls under the category of a civil suit.
• Cognizance of the suit is not barred: A civil court can entertain a suit unless its jurisdiction has been expressly or impliedly barred by statute.

In cases where a statutory provision explicitly or implicitly prohibits the jurisdiction of civil courts, the matter will be directed to the forum specified by the statute. This principle ensures that civil courts do not overstep their prescribed boundaries.

Types Jurisdiction of Civil Courts under Section 9 of the CPC

Territorial Jurisdiction (Local Jurisdiction)

Territorial jurisdiction refers to the geographical limits within which a court can exercise its authority. A court can only entertain suits arising within its defined territorial limits. The CPC lays down rules to determine the proper place for filing a suit, depending on the residence of the defendant, the location of the property in dispute, or where the cause of action arises.

Key Provisions under CPC

• Section 15 CPC: The general rule for determining territorial jurisdiction is that the suit should be filed in the court within whose jurisdiction the defendant resides or works for gain.
• Section 16 CPC: In cases relating to immovable property, the suit must be filed in the court having jurisdiction over the area where the property is situated.
• Section 20 CPC: This section allows suits to be filed in a court where the cause of action, wholly or partly, arises. Additionally, if there are multiple defendants, a suit can be filed in a court where any one of the defendants resides or works for gain.

The Supreme Court in Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. D.L.F. Universal Ltd. (2005) examined Section 16 CPC, ruling that a suit involving immovable property must be filed in the court having jurisdiction over the location of the property. The court emphasised that the jurisdiction of the court is determined by the location of the property, not by where the parties may reside. This case reaffirms the principle that a court cannot hear a suit regarding immovable property unless it has territorial jurisdiction over the property.

Pecuniary Jurisdiction

Pecuniary jurisdiction refers to a court’s authority to hear and decide a case based on the value of the subject matter in dispute. The CPC prescribes limits on the monetary value of claims that different courts can entertain. The purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction is to prevent higher courts from being burdened with cases involving low monetary amounts and to ensure that suits are heard in the appropriate forum.

Key Provisions under CPC

• Section 15 CPC: This section establishes that a suit must be filed in the court of the appropriate grade, depending on the value of the claim.
• Small Causes Courts: These courts typically handle suits involving low-value claims, often up to ₹50,000.
• District Courts and High Courts: These courts can entertain suits of higher value, with no pecuniary limit in the case of the High Courts.

In Karan Singh v. Chaman Paswan, the plaintiff filed a suit in a subordinate court for an amount of ₹2,950. The court initially rejected the suit due to pecuniary jurisdiction limitations. However, the High Court allowed the suit and ordered the payment of the deficit amount. The Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the High Court, holding that the decision of a court acting beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction is not void if rectified.

Jurisdiction as to Subject-Matter

Subject-matter jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court to hear cases that fall within the scope of its competence as defined by law. Some courts are designated to hear specific types of cases, such as family matters, probate cases, or contract disputes. Courts that do not have subject-matter jurisdiction cannot adjudicate on those types of cases.

Key Provisions under CPC

• Prescribed by Law: The jurisdiction to hear specific matters is typically defined by statutes. For example, family courts have exclusive jurisdiction over matrimonial matters, while probate courts handle issues related to wills and estates.
• Exclusion of Certain Cases: Certain cases, such as specific performance of contracts or partition of property, may be excluded from the jurisdiction of small causes courts, which have limited subject-matter jurisdiction.

A suit related to the partition of immovable property or the foreclosure of a mortgage cannot be filed in a small causes court, as these are outside its subject-matter jurisdiction. Such cases must be filed in a district court with the appropriate jurisdiction to hear matters related to property disputes.

Original and Appellate Jurisdiction

Original jurisdiction refers to a court’s authority to hear and decide a case in the first instance. A court with original jurisdiction has the power to examine the facts, hear evidence, and make a decision based on the merits of the case. For example, a district court has original jurisdiction to hear most civil matters, including property disputes, contractual issues, and tort claims.

Appellate Jurisdiction

Appellate jurisdiction refers to the authority of a higher court to review and decide appeals from lower courts. In the case of an appeal, the higher court does not re-examine the facts of the case but reviews the lower court’s judgement for errors of law or procedure. The High Court and Supreme Court both exercise appellate jurisdiction over cases decided by lower courts.

Exclusive and Concurrent Jurisdiction

Exclusive Jurisdiction

Exclusive jurisdiction means that only one court has the authority to hear and decide certain types of cases. This jurisdiction is determined by the nature of the subject matter, and the relevant law may specify a particular court to handle these matters.

For example, a case under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).

Concurrent Jurisdiction

Concurrent jurisdiction exists when two or more courts from different jurisdictions can hear and decide the same case. In such cases, the litigant has the freedom to choose the court in which they wish to file the case. The courts that share concurrent jurisdiction may include courts of the same or different levels.

General and Special Jurisdiction

General Jurisdiction

A court with general jurisdiction can hear a wide range of cases without any specific limitations. For example, district courts in India typically have general jurisdiction and can hear civil, criminal, and family law matters, among others.

Special Jurisdiction

Special jurisdiction refers to courts that are limited to hearing specific types of cases. For example, a family court has special jurisdiction to hear matters related to marriage, divorce, and child custody. Similarly, the Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to hear consumer disputes.

Legal and Equitable Jurisdiction

Legal Jurisdiction

Legal jurisdiction refers to the court’s authority to grant legal remedies based on statutory laws and established precedents. These remedies are typically concrete and measurable, such as monetary compensation (damages) or specific performance of a contract.

Equitable Jurisdiction

Equitable jurisdiction refers to the court’s authority to issue remedies that go beyond legal entitlements. These remedies are discretionary and aim to achieve fairness in situations where legal remedies may be inadequate. Equitable remedies include injunctions, specific performance, and restitution.

The concept of equitable jurisdiction is found in Section 151 of the CPC, which grants civil courts the power to issue orders necessary to meet the ends of justice.

Expounding and Expanding Jurisdiction

Expounding Jurisdiction

Expounding jurisdiction refers to the process of explaining or clarifying the scope and limits of a court’s jurisdiction. Courts may expound on jurisdiction when interpreting the law or applying legal principles to specific cases.

Expanding Jurisdiction

Expanding jurisdiction refers to the improper extension of a court’s jurisdiction beyond what is prescribed by law. Courts should not expand their jurisdiction beyond the legislative framework, as this would lead to judicial overreach.

Conclusion

The concept of jurisdiction is vital for maintaining the orderly functioning of the judiciary. Under the CPC, various types of jurisdiction—territorial, pecuniary, subject-matter, and others—ensure that cases are heard by the appropriate court. Understanding these different jurisdictions helps litigants avoid procedural pitfalls and ensures that disputes are resolved by the correct forum. By following the provisions laid out in the CPC, the legal system maintains its efficiency and fairness in administering justice.