Civil Court Jurisdiction CPC Sec 9 Explained with Examples
Suit of Civil Nature
Section 9 - Courts to Try All Civil Suits Unless Barred
The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.
[Explanation I] — A suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of a civil nature, notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of questions as to religious rites or ceremonies.
[Explanation II] — For the purposes of this section, it is immaterial whether or not any fees are attached to the office referred to in Explanation I or whether or not such office is attached to a particular place.
Jurisdiction of the Civil Court
Jurisdiction means the extent of the authority of a court to hear and decide a matter is called its jurisdiction.
In Official Trustee v Sachindra Nath Chatterjee (1969), Court observed that:
- Jurisdiction is the power of the Court to hear and determine the subject matter in controversy between parties to a suit and to adjudicate or exercise any judicial power over them.
- Jurisdiction of the Court may be qualified or restricted by a variety of circumstances. Thus, the jurisdiction may have to be considered with reference to place, value and nature of the subject matter.
- Jurisdiction of the court is decided on the basis of allegations made by the plaintiff in the Plaint.
- Every court has inherent power to decide the question of its own jurisdiction.
- Only legislatures has the power to create or enlarge the jurisdiction of the court.
Decree Passed Without Jurisdiction
A decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is called "Coram non judice".
In Kiran Singh v Chaman Paswan (1954), it was observed that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity subject to certain exceptions, and that it's invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings.
Can Jurisdiction Be Conferred on Any Court with the Consent of the Parties?
If the court has no jurisdiction, consent of the parties cannot confer that jurisdiction. Neither by consent jurisdiction can be ousted.
However, as held in Hakam Singh v Gammon (India) Ltd. (1971), if two or more courts have jurisdiction to try the suit, it is open to the parties to select a particular forum. Such an agreement between the parties would be legal, valid and enforceable.
Kinds of Jurisdiction
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Section 9)
- Pecuniary Jurisdiction (Section 6 and Section 15)
- Territorial Jurisdiction (Section 16-20)
Subject Matter Jurisdiction : Suit of Civil Nature
According to Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a civil court has jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature unless their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.
In Ganga Bai v Vijay Kumar (1974), SC observed that Section 9 complements the maxim "ubi jus ibi remedium" which means where there is a right there is a remedy. Every court has jurisdiction to try any suit of civil nature and therefore every individual has inherent right to file a suit of civil nature.
On Fulfillment of Following Conditions a Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Try a Suit:
- The Suit must be of civil nature
- The cognizance of such a suit should not have been expressly or impliedly barred
In PMA Metropolitan and others v Morem Mai Mahatma, (1995) SC held that Section 9 has both positive and negative dimension. Positive dimension is that section 9 clearly makes it mandatory for the court to exercise its jurisdiction if the suit is of civil nature. While the negative dimension is that though the suit may fall within the category of civil nature, civil court's jurisdiction to try it may be expressly or impliedly barred.
Suit of Civil Nature
Suit of Civil Nature means suit filed for enforcement of any civil legal right.
A suit is of a civil nature if the principal question in the suit relates to the determination of a civil right. A suit in which the principal question relates to caste or religion is not a suit of a civil nature.
Disputes in Which Civil Legal Rights as Well as Religious or Caste Based Questions Are Involved
- The approach in such cases will be firstly to examine the cause of action of the suit.
- Thereupon the various issues involved in the suit must be carved out and it must be seen as to which issues are the main issues and whether such main issues are related to civil legal rights or not.
- If yes then even if such issues are dependent upon some purely social or religious rights, the suit will be called a suit of civil nature.
- A suit is not of a civil nature if the principal or only question in the suit is a caste based question or questions relating to religious rites.
Disputes Involving Caste or Religion-Based Questions but Considered a Suit of Civil Nature
Example 1
A person from a certain caste claims that they were unlawfully denied entry to a public place or a religious institution, such as a temple, based on their caste. The suit is filed claiming that this denial of entry violates their fundamental civil rights, such as the right to equality and protection from discrimination under the Constitution, irrespective of caste.
Although the dispute is related to caste, the main issue revolves around the civil right to equality and access to public spaces, which is governed by the law, rather than purely a caste or religious rite issue. The suit is considered a civil nature suit because the primary question is whether a person's legal civil rights were violated, not about caste status or religious practices themselves.
Example 2
In Babri Masjid case there was one question as to who owns the property: i.e., who has the legal right to that property. But it also involves some religious matter like whether Ayodhya is Ram Janam Bhumi or not. Whether Namaj can be read only in Mosque? Is it compulsory to read namaj only in Mosques? But along with these religious issues one main issue was also involved i.e. question as to which community is entitled to that property? Therefore it was considered as a suit of civil nature.
Example 3
A person from certain caste is expelled from the caste. Caste is a legal status conferred upon him in accordance to the law. Therefore expelling him is depriving him from a legal right. Hence, a suit will lie for a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to be re admitted into the caste and also for damages for expulsion from the caste provided the expulsion is wrongful.
Example 4
Removal of or alteration of a religious marks in a temple or mosque amounts to interference with the property and is a ground of action in civil court.
Disputes Involving Caste or Religion-Based Questions and Not Considered as Suit of Civil Nature
Example 1
A dispute arises within a religious community regarding the correct interpretation or practice of a specific religious ritual, such as the mode of worship.
This case is not of civil nature because it involves a purely religious question, and the legal system typically does not intervene in matters of religious doctrine or practices unless there is a breach of civil rights.
Example 2
A dispute arises between two families within a specific caste regarding the leadership or headship of their caste community. One family claims the title of the caste leader based on traditional customs, while the other family contests this claim, arguing that the leadership should pass according to a different hereditary system.
This case is not of civil nature because it revolves entirely around caste-based customs and traditions without involving any civil rights, legal obligations, or violations of rights. The dispute is rooted in social and caste-based questions.
Suit for Religious Office
The Explanation I to the section assumes that a suit in which the right to an "office" is contested is a suit of a civil nature notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of questions as to religious rites or ceremonies.
Explanation II has been added by the amendment act of 1976. Before this explanation, there was a divergence of judicial opinion as to whether a suit relating to a religious office to which no fees or emoluments were attached can be said to be a suit of a civil nature. But the legal position has now been clarified by explanation II which specifically provides that a suit relating to a religious office is maintainable whether or not it carries any fees or whether or not it is attached to a particular place.
Suits for Vindication of a Mere Dignity Attached to an Office Are Not Suits of a Civil Nature
A claim by a swami (arch priest) that he is entitled to be carried on the high road of a town or village in a palanquin on a ceremonial occasions will not be entertained by a civil court. What is claimed in this case is a mere mark of honour attached to the office of Swami.
Suit for Contribution of Funds for Holding Religious Festivals
No one has a legal right to obtain money from someone else for religious festivals and therefore it may be a social issue but not a legal issue. However, if the opposite party had made a promise to give the subscription and on the faith of that promise the said party has altered his position to his own detriment then under the law of contract it becomes a legal right to obtain the money and hence the suit will be a suit of civil nature.
Suit for Right to Worship
In Koil Pillai vs Territorial Commando (1992), Court observed that well established legal position is that suits relating to rites or rituals in a place of worship are not of civil nature. However, the right to worship is a civil right which can be agitated in a civil court.
Expressly or Impliedly Barred
Another necessary condition apart from suit being that of civil nature is that trial of the same should not be expressly or impliedly barred from the exercise of jurisdiction by the civil court.
It is open to a competent legislature to bar jurisdiction of civil courts with respect to a particular class of suits of a civil nature.
These may be a special law on the matter which may exhaustively deal with that particular subject matter and it may create a special court regarding which it is expressly provided that all disputes related to that law shall be tried by that special court only. In such cases it will be said that exclusive jurisdiction upon those matters has been given to that special courts and therefore it amounts to an express bar upon the ordinary civil courts to try matter pertaining to that particular subject matter.
In Bata Shoe Co vs City Of Jabalpur Corporation (1977), it was held that matters falling within exclusive jurisdiction of Revenue Court, under Criminal Procedure Code, Industrial Tribunal, Income Tax Tribunal, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bar Council are ousted from the Jurisdiction of civil Courts.
In United India Insurance Co. Ltd v Ajay Sinha, (2008), it was held that any principle of exclusion of jurisdiction of a civil court shall be given a strict interpretation. As the general rule is that a civil court have jurisdiction on all suits. It is from other laws that it has to be derived as to which court will have exclusive jurisdiction upon what subject matter and accordingly the subject matter jurisdiction of ordinary civil court can be found out.
Despite the Express or Implied Bar the Ordinary Civil Courts May Still Have Jurisdiction to Try the Suits in Certain Circumstances
In Firm Seth Radha Kishan Vs. Administrator, Municipal Committee, Ludhiana,(1963), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in a case where jurisdiction of civil court has expressly been barred, a Suit should not be entertained. However, a Suit in the civil court will always lie to question the order of a Tribunal created by a Statute, even if its order is, expressly or by necessary implication, made final if the said Tribunal abused its power or does not act under the Act but in violation of its provisions.
In Dhula bhai v State of MP (1968 SC) Supreme Court speaking in a five Judges Bench, speaking through Hidayatullah J. held that despite the express or implied bar the ordinary civil courts may still have jurisdiction to try the suits pertaining to that law in the following situations:rn
- If party satisfies the civil court that the Statutory Tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure.
- The statute itself is ultra vires (i.e., unconstitutional) and therefore the tribunal also becomes ultra vires.
- If the statutory tribunal is not competent to provide all the remedies normally associated with the actions in civil courts.
Presumption Should Be Made in Favour of Jurisdiction of a Civil Court
In Subbayya Chetty & Sons Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1964), Court held that: "there is a general presumption that there must be a remedy in the ordinary civil court to a citizen in disputes of civil nature and that such a remedy can be held to be barred only on very clear and unmistakable indication to the contrary. The exclusion of the jurisdiction of a civil court to entertain civil cause will not be assumed unless the relevant Statute contains an express provision to that effect or leads to a necessary and inevitable implication of that nature".
In Abdul Gaffur and Another vs State of UK and Another (2008), the burden of proving a lack of jurisdiction lies upon the party who claims the lack of jurisdiction otherwise the court always starts with the presumption that it has jurisdiction.
If there is any doubt about the jurisdiction of a civil court, the court will lean to an interpretation which would maintain the jurisdiction, i.e every presumption should be made in favour of jurisdiction of a civil court.
Difference Between Expressly Barred Suits and Impliedly Barred Suits
1. General Distinction
The distinction between expressly barred suits and impliedly barred suits lies in the manner in which the exclusion of jurisdiction is indicated.
2. Expressly Barred Suits
Expressly barred suits are suits where the jurisdiction of the civil court is explicitly excluded by a specific law or statute. The statute clearly states that a particular matter cannot be tried by a civil court and must be dealt with by a specific authority or tribunal. For example, The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, explicitly bars civil courts from adjudicating disputes relating to industrial matters, as such disputes are to be resolved by labor courts or tribunals established under the Act.
3. Impliedly Barred Suits
Impliedly barred suits are suits where the jurisdiction of the civil court is not explicitly excluded but can be inferred from the scheme, purpose, and provisions of a statute. The exclusion is not stated outright, but it is understood that the legislature intended the matter to be resolved by a special mechanism or authority provided in the statute. For example, tax assessment disputes are dealt with under specific tax laws like the Income Tax Act, 1961, which provides a comprehensive mechanism for appeals and disputes. Though not expressly stated, it is implied that civil courts cannot entertain suits challenging tax assessments since the Act provides an alternative remedy.
