The term place of suing, simply refers to the location of the trial. This is
covered in sections 15 - 21 of the CPC. Every court has its own monetary and
geographic jurisdiction. The suit must be filed at the court of lowest grade
authorized to try it, according to Section 15 of the CPC.
To assess whether a civil court has jurisdiction, one must first determine if
the suit falls into a category barred by S. 9 of the CPC. The Courts shall have
authority to try all civil matters, except those for which their competence is
expressly or impliedly restricted, according to Section 9. As a result, if an
action is barred under s. 9, it cannot be filed in any civil court.
The jurisdiction is divided into two i.e., pecuniary jurisdiction (section 15)
and territorial jurisdiction. Territorial jurisdiction is again divided into
suits w.r.t immovable property ( S. 16-18), movable property (S. 19) and other
The lawsuit must be filed in the lowest-level court. This rule is a procedural
regulation that has no bearing on the jurisdiction of a case, making it only an
inefficient under s. 90 of the CPC rather than illegal. The plaintiffs
assessment in the plaint will be accepted, not the sum determined by the judge
in the ruling. Generally, a court allows the plaintiff's assessment of the
lawsuit, but if the plaintiff inflated or underestimated the value for some
private benefit, it is the court's responsibility to recalculate the amount.
In Tara Devi v. Shree Rhakur Radhakrishna Maharaj
, it was held that when
an objective criterion of valuation exists, putting a valuation on relief by
neglecting that standard may be manifestly capricious and unjust, and the court
may be justified in interfering. The pecuniary jurisdiction of each court
differs from one state to another state.
- Immovable property (s. 16-18)
Immovable property is dealt with in Section 16 clauses a-e. For the recovery
of immovable property with/without rent or revenues, for the partition of
immovable property, for the foreclosure, sale, or redemption of a mortgage
of or charge upon immovable property, for the determination of any other
right to or interest in immovable property, and for compensation for wrong
to immovable property (TORT).
The lawsuit must be filed solely in the court that has jurisdiction over the
immovable property. The issue arises, however, when the property is subject
to the jurisdiction of multiple courts. S. 17 of the CPC is used to combat
this issue. Section 17 specifies that a matter can be filed in any court if
it comes within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. Section 18 of cpc
states that, a place of an institution when the jurisdiction of courts is
- Movable property (s. 19)
As per section 19, when suit is for compensation for wrong done (TORT) or to
movable property, If it is executed within the jurisdiction of one Court and
the defendant resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain,
within the local limits of the jurisdiction of another Court, the litigation
may be initiated at the plaintiffs choice in either of the mentioned Courts.
In other words, the plaintiff can file a lawsuit at the residence of
respondent, place of business, or the location where the wrong was done. The
simplest way to understand this is to use an example
Example: A person "X" who resides in Gurugram carries his business of
transportation of wood from Delhi. "Y" ordered some wood to be transferred from
Delhi to Calcutta but in middle i.e. Gujarat the wood was misplaced. Now Y can
sue X at Gurugram as this is his place of residence, may be at Delhi as this is
his place of caring business, may be at Lucknow as the wrong was committed here.
Section 20 of the act covers all the other cases not covered by any of the
earlier discussed provisions. The plaintiff can file suit in the following
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
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
The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
For example, X lives at Shimla, Y at Calcutta and Z at Delhi. X, Y and Z being
together at cochin, Y and Z make a joint promissory note payable on demand and
deliver it to X. X may sue Y and Z at cochin, where the cause of action arose.
He may also sue them at Calcutta, where Y resides, or at Delhi, where Z resides.
However, in each of these cases, if the non- resident defendant objects, the
suit cannot proceed without the leave of the Court.
According to S. 21 of the CPC, a jurisdictional objection must be made as early
as practicable in a case. In the case of Hira Lal v. Kali Nath, it was held that
an appeal court will not entertain an objection to the venue of a lawsuit unless
the following three conditions are met:
The objection was filed in the first instance court:
It was made at the earliest feasible opportunity in circumstances where matters
are resolved at or before settlement of issues.
There is a miscarriage of justice.
Award Winning Article Is Written By: Ms.Mudunuri Jahnavi Lahari
Authentication No: SP226028498091-17-0922