PLACE OF SUING

• An aggrieved person has a right to file a civil suit before the court/ tribunal for grievance of his redressal. A civil suit may be filed before Sections 15-20 of the CPC regulate the forum/ court for institution of a civil suit.[1]
• Rules as to Pecuniary Jurisdiction—Section 15 provides that every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it.
• Rules as to Territorial Jurisdiction—For the purpose of territorial jurisdiction of a court, suits may be divided into following classes

Suits in respect of immovable property[2]—Sections 16-18

Section 16—Where the subject-matter situate in India—This section provides that suit for immovable property is instituted in the Court within whose local jurisdiction the property is situate. Section 16 provides that subject to pecuniary and other limitations following suits shall be filed where the property situate—(UKJ-2002)

• Suit for recovery of immovable property (with or without rent or profit).
• Suit for partition of immovable property.
• Suit for foreclosure, sale or redemption in case of mortgage of immovable property.
• Suit for foreclosure, sale or redemption in case of charge upon immovable property.
• Suit for the determination of any other right/interest in immovable property.
• Suit for compensation for wrong to immovable property—However, it is to be noted that such suit can also be filed in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain.
• Suit for the recovery of movable property actually under distraint or attachment.,

Explanation—In this section “property” means property situate in India.

Section 17—Suits for immovable property situate within jurisdiction of different Courts—

• Section 17 provides that where the suit property situate within the jurisdiction of different Courts, the suit may be instituted in any Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situate.

• However, in respect of the value of the subject matter of the suit, the entire claim is cognizable by such Court.

Section 18—Place of institution of suit where local limits of jurisdiction of Courts are uncertain?—

• Section 18 lays down that where jurisdiction of the court is uncertain, any one of those Courts may, on the ground for the alleged uncertainty, dispose of the suit after recording the statement for uncertainty. However, the court must be competent to exercise such jurisdiction.(UPJ-2003)
• It is also to be noted that where a statement as to uncertainty has not been recorded and objection is taken before an Appellate or Revisional Court that 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.

Suits in respect of damage to movable property or tort—Section 19—

• Section 19 provides that a suit for damage or wrong (tort) to any movable property or to any person may be filed in any of the following courts—
• where cause of action has arises, or
• where defendant resides (at the time of the institution of the suit), or
• where defendant carries on business or works for gain.
• However, it is to be noted that where the wrong was done within the jurisdiction of one Court and the defendant resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, within the jurisdiction of another Court, the suit may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff in either of the said Courts.
• Illustrations:
• A, residing in Delhi, beats B in Calcutta. B may sue A either in Calcutta or in Delhi.
• A, residing in Delhi, publishes defamatory statements against B in Calcutta. B may sue A either in Calcutta or in Delhi.

OTHER SUITS:

Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises?—Section 20—

• Section 20 is residuary in nature. Section 20 deals with the filing of other kinds of suits which have not been covered under Sections 16-19. All suits may be filed at plaintiff’s option in any of the following courts—(MPJ-1993)
• Where the cause of action wholly or partly arises,
• Where the defendant resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain,
• Where there are more than two defendants, one of the defendants, at the time of the commencement of the suit resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain. However, 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 has agree for such institution.

Illustrations:

• A is a tradesman in Calcutta, B carries on business in Delhi. B, by his agent in Calcutta. He buys goods of A and requests A to deliver them to the East Indian Railway Company. A delivers the goods accordingly in Calcutta. A may sue B for the price of the goods either in Calcutta, where the cause of action has arisen or in Delhi, where B carries on business.
• A resides at Simla, B at Calcutta and C at Delhi A, B and C being together at Benaras, B and C make a joint promissory note payable on demand, and deliver it to A. A may sue B and C at Benaras, where the cause of action arose. He may also sue them at Calcutta, where B resides, or at Delhi, where C resides; but in each of these cases, if the non-resident defendant object, the suit cannot proceed without the leave of the Court.
• Explanation—A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India or, in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place.

Section 21—Objections to jurisdiction?—

Section 21 provides that an objection as to the place of suing/ pecuniary jurisdiction/ competence of executing court shall not 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
• there has been a consequent failure of justice.

Lack or irregular exercise of jurisdiction:

There is a notable distinction between lack of jurisdiction and irregular exercise of jurisdiction. Where the Court lacks inherent jurisdiction the decree passed would be a nullity. However, irregular exercise of territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction is mere technical in nature and may be waived.

Bar on suit to set aside decree on objection as to place of suing?—Section 21A

No new suit can be filed to challenge the validity of a decree passed in former suit as to place of suing.

___________________________________________________________________________

[1].State the provisions which govern the determination of place of suing. In which court and in what place should any suit be instituted?

[2].Discuss those provisions of CPC which are applied in determination of forum for filing a suit relating to immovable property.

___________________________________________________

The tam LegalMines has copyright over the contents and style.