More Create Blog Sign In

Law Student Notes

Arthur Hailey Dan Brown Irwin Wallace J K Rowling John Grisham Mario Puzo Robin Cook

Monday, December 10, 2012 In Search

Place of Suing S.15 to 21 CPC

Place of Suing:

S.15 to 21 CPC deals with the Court in which a suit is to be instituted, as

follows:

S.15 Court in which suits to be instituted

S.16 Suits to be instituted where subject matter situate

S.17 Suits for immovable property situate within jurisdiction of different Courts

S.18 Place of institution of suit where local limits of jurisdiction of Courts are In Search
uncertain

S.19 Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables Blog Archive
Dec 2012 (6)
S.20 Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action
arises
Google+ Followers
S.21 Objections to jurisdiction
Priyadharshi…
S.15 Court in which suits to be instituted
Add to circles
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.

Objects: the main objects of the section is :

-> To reduce the burden of the higher Courts
-> 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.
88 have me View
S.16 Suits to be instituted where subject matter situate in circles all

Subject to pecuniary and other limitations prescribed by any law, suits for:
1) Recovery of immoveable property with or without rents and profits,
About Me
2) Partition of immoveable property,
3) Foreclosure, sale, redemption in cases of mortgage or charge upon
immoveable property,
4) Determination of any other right or interest in immoveable property,
5) Compensation of wrong to immoveable property,
6) Recovery of moveable property actually under attachment,
Priyadharshini
Shall be instituted in Court, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is Indhira
situate. It is also provided that Follow 88

- When suit is filed t obtain relief respecting or compensating any wrong to any Visit me here
immoveable property,
 - And relief can be entirely obtained through personal obedience. Student Law Notes
View my complete
In above case, the suit can be instituted either at profile
· Court within whose local limit the property is situated.
· Court within whose local jurisdiction the defendant voluntarily resides or
conducts business or trade. Followers

Anand Bazaar Patrika V Biswanath Prasad Followers (14)

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.

Seetha Rama Chetty V Kamala Amma

In a suit filed in Bangalore for a property located in Tamilnadu, to determine right Follow
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,
=> It has resulted in consequent failure of justice.
In these cases, apart from the uncertain territorial jurisdiction, the Court should be
competent as regards
-> nature of suit -> pecuniary jurisdiction.

S.19 Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables

In case of wrong to person or moveables :-

=> In place where Cause of Action arose
=> In place where the defendant ordinarily resides or carries business or
personally works for gain.
Eg
Defendant Hits Plaintiff
A --------------------------> B
Madras Delhi Delhi <= Place of
Residence/Occurrence

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:-
 - Defendant(s) at time of commencement of suit actually or voluntarily
resides carries business or trade or personally works for gain.

- 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 don’t 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

- Sole/ Principal office.

- Sub-Ordinate Office, if cause of action arose at such location.

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.

Patel Roadways V Parsad Trading Company 1992

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 corporation’s place of business and not an additional
one.

ABC Lamnart Private Ltd V AP Agencies

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
- the clause is explicit , precise and unambiguous.
- not hit by Ss. 23 and 28 of Indian Contract Act.

S.21 Objections to jurisdiction

No objection as to place of suing is allowed in any Appellate or Revisionary Court

, unless
- such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible
opportunity.
- in cases where settlement is arrived, at or before, such settlement and
- there has been a consequent failure of justice.
No objection as to competence of Court as to pecuniary jurisdiction will be allowed at any
appellate or revisionary Court unless, conditions mentioned above are satisfied.

No objection as to competence of executing Court will be allowed 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.

RSDV Finance Company Ltd V Shree Vallabh Glass Works 1993

Where in respect of a suit the two conditions namely

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.

Posted by Priyadharshini Indhira at 8:09 PM

Labels: CPC

6 comments:
Unknown September 26, 2013 at 12:34 PM

ita compact

Reply

David Echor October 17, 2015 at 12:21 PM

Awsome Information. law coursework writing

Reply

Ishan Sharma December 28, 2017 at 7:18 PM

Excellently explained

Reply

GP SUNIL February 26, 2018 at 7:18 PM

Thanks good notes

Reply

anusha mani March 23, 2018 at 12:43 AM

Good notes...tku so much ☺

Reply

Unknown July 28, 2018 at 2:51 AM

Awesome notes ......tku so much ☺

Reply

Enter your comment...

Comment as: Google Accoun

Publish Preview

Links to this post

Create a Link

Newer Post Home Older Post

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Ethereal theme. Powered by Blogger.