It is established law that the suit should be filed in the proper court and in such court which is competent to hear such cases. For this, all types of jurisdiction of the court should be taken into account.

Sections 15 to 20 of Civil Procedure code, 1908, make provisions in this regard i.e. provision has been made for place of suings.

1. The Court in which suit should be instituted:
   According to section 15 of the code every suit shall be instituted in the court of the lowest grade competent to try it.
   
   It means, the suit should be filed for the first time, in the lowest grade court which is competent to hear it, not in the court higher to it.
   
   For example, A wants to file suit for the recovery of Rs. 10,000/-. He should file such suit in the Civil Court (Junior Division), because it is the court of lowest nature and it has jurisdiction to hear it. The main objective of this section is to save the upper courts from the overcrowding of suits.
   
   From the point of view of jurisdiction, the valuation of suit will be that which has been mentioned in the plant (Mahadev Vs Hanumanmal, A.I.R. 1969, Rajasthan 304). Further it is the rule of procedure not of jurisdiction. If the suit relating to low valuation is heard by the court of higher jurisdiction then it will be a disability of correctionable nature. It will affect the jurisdiction of the court. (Bhaiyyalal Vs Tikaram, 1970, MPLJ 622).
    
2. The suit will be filed at that place where the subject matter exist:
   According to section 16 of the Act, subject to economic limits and provisions of any law, the suit should be filed in the local jurisdiction of that court where such immovable property is situated:
   
   1. for recovery of immovable property with or without profits;
   2. for partition of immovable property;
   3. for the prohibition of redemption or sale of any immovable property which is subject to any charge or for its redemption;
   4. for maintaining any right in the immoveable property;
   5. suit for recovery of moveable property subject to liquidation order.
   It has been said in the provision that the suit for required relief for the wrong done to property by the defendant or compensation therefore will be instituted in the jurisdiction of the court where the required relief could have been sought, due to property in personal obedience of defendant and
   
   1. the property is situated in the local limits of jurisdiction;
   2. where the defendant volumta�
   3. resides there;
   4. does his business;
   5. works for profits.
   In Nanji Moolji Kanami Vs Manglaben Parmanand (A.I.R. 1969, Gujarat 308), the Gujarat High Court decided that no court can provide any relief for property which is not situated in the jurisdiction of that court.
    
3. Suits, where the immoveable property is situated in the Jurisdiction of different Courts
   According to provisions of Section 17 of the Act, any suit for seeking relief or for compensation for wrong done to such property by the defendant, where such property is situated in the jurisdiction of various courts, will be filed in the jurisdiction of that court where any portion of such property is situated.
   
   Provided the whole suit is cognizable by such court.
   
   For example, suit was to be filed for the properties situated in Delhi, Jammu and Kashmir. For such kind of properties, it was decided that the suit could have filed in any court situated in Delhi, Jullundar, Jammu and Kashmir (Diwan Ijjat Rai Nanda Vs Diwan Iqbal Nath Nanda, A.I.R. 1981, Delhi 262).
    
4. Suit, where it is not certain on to the jurisdiction of the Court, where such property is situated:
   Provision has been made in under section 18 of the act that where it is not certain as to the jurisdiction of the court where such property is situated, suit can be filed in the jurisdiction of any such court. For example, an immoveable property is situated at the border limits of three district- Rajasthan, Udaipur and Dungarpur, and where it is not certain as to in which district such property is situated, then the suit can be filed in any competentcourt in Udaipur or Rajasthan or Dungarpur.
    
5. Suit for the compensation for wrong done to individual or moveableproperty:
   According to section 19, the suit for compensation for wrong to individual or moveable can be filed in any court depending upon the will of the plaintiff:
   
   1. Where the wrong has been done in the local jurisdiction of any court; and
   2. the defendant in the jurisdiction of any other court
      
      1. resides
      2. does his business
      3. does his work for profit.
      For example, A who lives in Delhi beats B in Calcutta, B can institute suit against A either in Delhi or Calcutta.
      Similarly, A publishes any defamatory article against B in Calcutta but A lives in Delhi. B can file suit against A either in Delhi or Calcutta.
       
6. Suit in other places where the defendant resides or where the cause of action has arisen:
   According to section 20 of the code subject to the above provisions, any suit can be filed in the jurisdiction of the court:
   
   1. Defendant or where there are more than one defendant, then each of these defendants voluntary
      
      1. resides
      2. does his business
      3. does his work for profit.
   2. Where there are more than one defendants then any of such defendants at the time of institution of suit actually and voluntarly:
      
      1. resides
      2. does his business
      3. does his work for profit and
      4. either the permission has been given by the court or
      5. the defendant do not reside or work but they have acquiesced or institution of such suit.
      where the cause of action arises wholly or in part.
      Thus according to section 20 of the Act any suit can be filed in the jurisdiction of any court:
      
      1. where the defendant actually or voluntarly resides, does his business and works for profit; or
      2. where the cause of action has arisen wholly or in part.

In the case Sumitra Kumar De (A.I.R. 1982 Calcutta 32), the Hundies were prepared in Delhi and were accepted in Kolkata, thus cause of action has arisen partly in Delhi and partly in Kolkata, the suit could have been filed in Delhi also.

In Patel Roadways Private Limited Hyderabad Vs The Republic Forge Company Limited, Hyderabad (A.I.R. 1985, Andhra Pradesh, 387), it has been said that the party can choose any of two courts for filing of suit where any part of cause of action has arisen.

No suit can be fled at any place where no cause of action has arisen either wholly or in part. (State of Gujarat Vs Savitri Devi, A.I.R. 1996 SC 937).

In this regard, Hatti Gold Mines Limited Vs Messer Vinay Heavy Equipment (A.I.R. 2005, Karnataka 264) qaorable case. In this case, the cause of action arose partly in Bengalore and partly in Chitradurg, but the party has decided that in case of dispute the suit will be filed in Bengalore. The Karnataka High Court is decided that the suit could have been filed in Bengalore.