Place of suing (sections 15 to 21A)
Civil Procedure Code and Limitation Act · Unit I · Topic 6 of 27 · 8 min read
On this page
Cases checked to exist. Read the judgment before quoting a holding.
Every case cited here has been checked to exist — the citation resolves and names the right parties. The propositions attributed to each case have not been verified line by line against the judgment. Case names link through to the full judgment: read it before quoting a holding in an examination answer, and never carry a proposition from notes into court on trust.
1. Section 15: the court of the lowest grade
Every suit shall be instituted in the court of the lowest grade competent to try it. The rule is one of procedure, meant to keep the higher courts free of work the lower ones can do. It does not oust the jurisdiction of a higher court: a decree passed by a higher-grade court that had pecuniary jurisdiction is not a nullity. The competence referred to is pecuniary competence, and the value is the plaintiff’s valuation in the plaint, not the amount ultimately decreed.
2. Suits relating to immovable property: sections 16 to 18
Section 16. Subject to pecuniary or other limitations, suits:
- (a) for recovery of immovable property, with or without rent or profits;
- (b) for partition of immovable property;
- (c) for foreclosure, sale or redemption in the case of a mortgage of or charge on immovable property;
- (d) for the determination of any other right to or interest in immovable property;
- (e) for compensation for wrong to immovable property;
- (f) for the recovery of movable property actually under distraint or attachment,
shall be instituted in the court within whose local limits the property is situate. This is the old rule that a court cannot pass a decree concerning land beyond its territory.
The proviso softens it. A suit to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immovable property held by or on behalf of the defendant may, where the relief sought can be entirely obtained through his personal obedience, be instituted either where the property is situate or where the defendant actually and voluntarily resides, carries on business or personally works for gain. This is the equitable maxim aequitas agit in personam. A suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land, where only the execution of a sale deed is sought, may fall within the proviso; a suit that also asks for delivery of possession does not.
In Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd., 2005 INSC 444, (2005) 7 SCC 791, a plot in Gurgaon was the subject of a suit for specific performance and possession filed in Delhi. The Court held that the suit fell under section 16(d), had to be filed where the property was situated, could not come within the proviso because the relief of possession could not be obtained by the defendant’s personal obedience, and that parties cannot by agreement confer jurisdiction on a court that has none.
Section 17. Where immovable property is situate within the jurisdiction of different courts, the suit may be instituted in any court within whose local limits any portion of the property is situate, provided that court is competent as regards the value of the entire claim.
Section 18. Where it is uncertain within which of two or more courts the property lies, any of them may, if satisfied there is ground for the uncertainty, record a statement to that effect and try the suit. If no statement is recorded, an appellate or revisional court will not allow the objection unless there was no reasonable ground for uncertainty and there has been a consequent failure of justice.
3. Section 19: wrongs to the person or to movables
Where a suit is for compensation for wrong done to the person or to movable property, and the wrong was done within the jurisdiction of one court while the defendant resides, carries on business or personally works for gain within another, the plaintiff may sue in either. The illustrations:
- (a) A, residing in Delhi, beats B in Calcutta. B may sue A either in Calcutta or in Delhi.
- (b) A, residing in Delhi, publishes in Calcutta statements defamatory of B. B may sue A either in Calcutta or in Delhi.
4. Section 20: the residuary rule
Every other suit shall be instituted in a court within whose local limits:
- (a) the defendant, or each of the defendants, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or
- (b) any of the defendants so resides, carries on business or works for gain, provided either the leave of the court is given or the other defendants acquiesce; or
- (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
The Explanation deems a corporation to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India, or, for a cause of action arising where it has a subordinate office, at that place. In Patel Roadways Ltd. v. Prasad Trading Co., 1991 INSC 172, (1991) 4 SCC 270, the Court read the Explanation as meaning that where the cause of action arises at a place where the corporation has a subordinate office, only the court at that place has jurisdiction, and not the court at the principal office as well. “Corporation” includes a company.
Cause of action means the bundle of facts the plaintiff must prove to get a decree. For a contract, it may arise where the contract was made, where it was to be performed, or where payment was to be made.
5. Exclusive-jurisdiction clauses
Parties cannot confer jurisdiction on a court that has none. But where two or more courts have jurisdiction under the Code, they may agree to sue in only one of them, and the agreement is not hit by section 28 of the Contract Act. Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd., 1971 INSC 8, (1971) 1 SCC 286; A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, 1989 INSC 87, (1989) 2 SCC 163, which added that words like “alone”, “only” or “exclusive” make the intention clear, and that without them the court will look at the intention. In Swastik Gases (P) Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 2013 INSC 422, (2013) 9 SCC 32, the Court held that a clause saying the agreement “shall be subject to jurisdiction of the courts at Kolkata” showed an intention to exclude other courts even without such words.
6. Objections: sections 21 and 21A
- Section 21(1). No objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by an appellate or revisional court unless it was taken in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity (and, where issues are settled, at or before settlement), and there has been a consequent failure of justice. All three conditions must be met.
- Section 21(2) (1976) applies the same rule to objections about pecuniary limits, and section 21(3) to objections about the local limits of the executing court.
- Section 21A (1976) bars a suit challenging a decree passed in a former suit between the same parties on any ground based on an objection as to the place of suing.
The rationale is Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, 1954 INSC 45, AIR 1954 SC 340: territorial and pecuniary objections are technical and are not allowed to defeat a decree on the merits unless they caused real prejudice.
7. Problem
A, residing in Delhi, beats B in Calcutta. B wants to sue A for damages. Where can he sue? (October 2023)
Issue. Which court has territorial jurisdiction over a suit for compensation for a wrong to the person.
Law. Section 19 gives the plaintiff an option where the wrong is done within the jurisdiction of one court and the defendant resides within another. Illustration (a) to section 19 is this very case.
Application and conclusion. The assault (the wrong) took place in Calcutta; the defendant resides in Delhi. B may sue either in Calcutta or in Delhi, at his option, in the court of the lowest grade competent to try it by value (section 15). If A did not object to the place of suing at the first opportunity, he cannot raise it later in appeal (section 21). The criminal assault is a separate matter, prosecuted where the offence occurred under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
A variant asks where to sue on a contract: apply section 20 and illustration (a) to it (sale by a Calcutta trader to a Delhi buyer through an agent in Calcutta: suit in Calcutta where the cause of action arose, or in Delhi where the buyer carries on business).
How this is examined
Every recent paper: “Discuss the provisions of CPC in respect of place of suing” (January 2026, October 2023); “Briefly state the principles governing the place of suing” (June 2025); “Every civil suit must be instituted before a lowest civil court competent to try that suit — Discuss” (August 2024), which is the same essay entered through section 15. Cover sections 15 to 20 in order, the proviso to section 16 with Harshad Chiman Lal Modi, the corporation Explanation with Patel Roadways, ouster clauses, and section 21.
Now try the real questions: Civil Procedure Code and Limitation Act past question papers.