Jurisdiction of civil courts and suits of a civil nature (section 9)

1. Meaning of jurisdiction

Jurisdiction is the authority of a court to decide matters that are litigated before it, or to take cognisance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision. It is conferred by statute (or the Constitution); it cannot be conferred by consent of parties, by waiver or by acquiescence. In Official Trustee, West Bengal v. Sachindra Nath Chatterjee, 1968 INSC 340, AIR 1969 SC 823, the Court said that a court must have jurisdiction not only over the subject-matter and the parties but also to grant the particular relief sought.

2. Kinds of jurisdiction

• Territorial (local). Each court has local limits fixed by the State Government. Sections 15 to 20 decide which court within those limits a suit must go to.
• Pecuniary. Courts are graded by the value of the subject-matter they may try. Section 6 says nothing in the Code gives a court jurisdiction over suits whose value exceeds its pecuniary limits. In Karnataka the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Civil Judge (Senior Division) have pecuniary limits fixed under the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964.
• Subject-matter. Some courts are barred from certain classes of suits. A Small Cause Court cannot try a suit for partition or for specific performance; matrimonial cases go to the Family Court where one is established.
• Original and appellate. Original jurisdiction is to entertain suits at first instance; appellate jurisdiction is to hear appeals. A District Court has both. Some High Courts (Bombay, Calcutta, Delhi, Madras) also have ordinary original civil jurisdiction.
• Exclusive and concurrent. Exclusive where only one court may try the matter; concurrent where two or more may, and the plaintiff chooses.

An objection to territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction is a technical one. Under section 21 it must be taken in the court of first instance at the earliest opportunity, and an appellate court will not entertain it unless there has been a consequent failure of justice. A want of subject-matter jurisdiction is different: it goes to the root, and a decree passed without it is a nullity.

3. 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.” Two conditions therefore: the suit must be of a civil nature, and its cognisance must not be barred.

The section raises a presumption in favour of jurisdiction. In Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar, 1974 INSC 87, (1974) 2 SCC 393, the Court said that there is an inherent right in every person to bring a suit of a civil nature and, unless the suit is barred by statute, one may, at one’s peril, bring a suit of one’s choice. Whoever says jurisdiction is excluded must prove it, and a statute excluding it is construed strictly.

4. Suit of a civil nature

“Civil” refers to the private rights and remedies of a citizen, as distinct from criminal, political or purely religious matters. A suit is of a civil nature if its principal question relates to a civil right: a right to property, to an office, to status, to damages. Political questions, purely religious rites, caste questions and matters of social precedence are not, unless a civil right depends on them.

• Explanation I. A suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is of a civil nature, even if the right depends entirely on questions of religious rites or ceremonies.
• Explanation II (added in 1976). It is immaterial whether fees are attached to the office, or whether the office is attached to a particular place.

So a suit by a priest for a declaration that he holds the office of archaka, or for emoluments attached to it, is civil; a suit merely to establish that a person is entitled to precedence in a procession, or to an honour with no office or property attached, is not. In Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma, 1995 INSC 380, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 286, arising out of the Malankara Church dispute, the Court read section 9 widely: the expansive language, the Explanations and the absence of any qualifying words show that every suit for a civil right lies, even where it involves questions of religious office or ritual.

5. Express and implied bars

Express bar. A statute may say in terms that no civil court shall entertain a suit on a matter: for example, section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 for matters which a Debts Recovery Tribunal may decide, or the bars in revenue and land reform laws. The legislature must be competent to enact the bar, and the bar does not oust jurisdiction where the tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure.

Implied bar. A suit is impliedly barred where a statute creates a right and provides its own complete remedy, or where public policy forbids the suit. In Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke, 1975 INSC 180, (1976) 1 SCC 496, the Court held that where an industrial dispute concerns a right or obligation created only by the Industrial Disputes Act, the remedy lies only under that Act; where the dispute involves a common-law right, the civil court has jurisdiction.

6. The Dhulabhai propositions

The leading statement is in Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1968 INSC 92, AIR 1969 SC 78, where Hidayatullah C.J. laid down seven propositions. In summary:

• Where the statute gives finality to the orders of special tribunals, the civil court’s jurisdiction is excluded if there is an adequate remedy to do what civil courts would normally do. That exclusion does not apply where the provisions of the statute have not been complied with, or the tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure.
• Where there is an express bar, the scheme of the Act may be examined to find the adequacy of the remedies, but this is not decisive to sustain jurisdiction.
• Challenges to the provisions of the Act as ultra vires cannot be brought before the tribunals constituted under it; a suit lies.
• Where a provision is declared unconstitutional, a suit for refund of tax collected under it lies, subject to limitation.
• Where the statute creates a special right or liability and provides for its determination by a tribunal, and the remedies are adequate, the civil court is excluded.
• Questions of the correctness of an assessment, apart from its constitutionality, are for the authorities under the Act.
• Exclusion of jurisdiction is not readily to be inferred.

7. Effect of a decree without jurisdiction

In Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, 1954 INSC 45, AIR 1954 SC 340, the Court held that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and its invalidity can be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced, even in execution or collateral proceedings. The defect, if it is one of subject-matter or inherent jurisdiction, cannot be cured by consent. But the Court also held that an objection to pecuniary jurisdiction (there, by over-valuation) is governed by section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 and cannot be entertained in appeal unless it caused prejudice on the merits. The same thinking lies behind section 21 for territorial objections.

8. Problem

A State land reform Act provides that no civil court shall decide any question that the Land Tribunal is empowered to decide. A sues in the civil court for a declaration that the Tribunal’s order granting occupancy rights to B is void, because the Tribunal decided the matter without giving him notice. Is the suit maintainable?

Issue. Whether the express bar ousts the civil court where the tribunal has acted in breach of natural justice.

Law. Section 9 presumes jurisdiction; exclusion must be express or clearly implied and is construed strictly. Under the first Dhulabhai proposition, even an express bar does not exclude the civil court where the tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure.

Application and conclusion. Deciding without notice to a person whose rights are affected is a breach of a fundamental principle of judicial procedure. The bar protects orders made within the Act, not orders made in disregard of it. The suit is maintainable to the limited extent of declaring the order a nullity. A could also have gone to the High Court under Article 226; the existence of that remedy does not by itself bar the suit.

How this is examined

As essays: “Civil court have jurisdiction to adjudicate all the suits of civil nature, which are not expressly or impliedly barred by any law — Discuss” (January 2026); and “What is jurisdiction? Explain the different kinds of jurisdiction of the civil court” (January 2025, and again in August 2024). For the section 9 question, structure the answer as presumption, civil nature with the Explanations, express bar, implied bar, and Dhulabhai. For the kinds-of-jurisdiction question, add section 21 and Kiran Singh at the end.