15 to 21 CPC
Every suit shall be instituted in the Court of lowest grade competent to try it. Here competency refers
to pecuniary jurisdiction, which shall be determined by High Court from time to time.
-> Afford convenience to the parties and witnesses who may be examined by them in such suits.
The District Judge and Sub-Ordinate Judges all have jurisdiction over all Original Suits., cognizable by
the Civil Court subject to the condition suits are to be instituted in a Court of lowest grade competent
to try it.
Subject to pecuniary and other limitations prescribed by any law, suits for:
Shall be instituted in Court, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate. It is
also provided that
-When suit is filed it obtain relief respecting or compensating any wrong to any immoveable property,
Court within whose local jurisdiction the defendant voluntarily resides or conducts business or trade.
Held a suit for Specific performance for, contract of sale with possession, it has to be instituted in the
Court in whose jurisdiction the property is situated and can not be filed where cause of action arises.
In a suit filed in Bangalore for a property located in Tamilnadu, to determine right and interest in the
immoveable property, Court held that as long as the defendant is residing within the jurisdiction of
Bangalore Court, where the suit is instituted, the suit was maintainable under S.16(d) read with the
proviso.
S.17 Suits for immovable property situate within jurisdiction of different Courts
Where the subject matter of the suit, immoveable property, is situated within the local jurisdiction of
two or more different Courts, the suits may be instituted in any Court, within whose local jurisdiction,
a portion of the property is situated, and Court is competent to adjudicate over entire suit property,
not just portion situated in its jurisdiction.
S.18 Place of institution of suit where local limits of jurisdiction of Courts are uncertain
When it is uncertain as regards under which of the two or more Courts, the territorial jurisdiction falls
into, and one of such Courts has also ascertained such uncertainty, then it may proceed to entertain
and dispose the suit related to the property; after recording the existence of such uncertainty.
Where no such statement has been recorded and objection is raised in appeal or revision, the Higher
Court will not allow such objection unless
=> At time of institution of suit, no reasonable ground for uncertainty as to Court was there, and,
In these cases, apart from the uncertain territorial jurisdiction, the Court should be competent as
regards -> nature of suit -> pecuniary jurisdiction.
=> In place where the defendant ordinarily resides or carries business or personally works for gain.
Eg
A --------------------------> B
Cause of action lies in Delhi, so can sue in Delhi. The defendant resides in Madras, so can sue in Madras.
S.20 Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises
Subject to afore said limitations, i.e Ss 15 to 19,every suit shall be instituted in Court within whose
local limits of jurisdiction:-
- any of the defendant ( if more than one) at time of commencement of suit actually or voluntarily
resides carries business or trade or personally works for gain, provided (a) Court gives leave to do so
(b) Defendants who dont reside there accept. - Where cause of action arises.
For the purpose of S. 20, it is deemed that a Corporation carries on its business at its
Eg. - A resides in Shimla, B resides in Calcutta , C resides in Delhi. A B and C together in Benaras , and
B and C together execute a joint promissory note payable on demand and delivered it to A in Benaras.
A may sue B and C at (A) Benaras where Cause of Action. (B) Calcutta or Delhi where A/B resides
provided other defendant accepts or Court grants leave.
Where defendant has Principal Office at one place and Sub Ordinate office at another, and Cause of
Action arose, in place where the subordinate office is located, then the place of subordinate office
where cause of action arose is the relevant place for filing the suit and not the place where principal
office is located. Held, that, the explanation to S.20 provides an alternative locus for corporations
place of business and not an additional one.
Held, the jurisdiction of Court in matter of contract will depend on the situs of contract and Cause of
Action arising through connecting factors. Further held, the parties may agree to vest jurisdiction in
one of the many competent Court and such Ouster Clause is valid if
- such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity.
- such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and,
1)such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity.
2) in cases where settlement is arrived, at or before, such settlement , are satisfied and the third
condition namely
3) there has been a consequent failure of justice, has not been satisfied, it was HELD that Court would
not be justified in allowing objection to jurisdiction of Court in appeal.