Don’t Miss Out! Judiciary Foundation Course, Exclusive Evening Batch Commences 7th October   |   Secure Your Seat Today – UP APO Prelims Courses, 2025 (Batch from 6th October)   |   Admissions Open: UP APO Prelims & Mains (English & Hindi) | Batch Begins 6th October
         









Home / Current Affairs

Civil Law

Jurisdiction under CPC

    «    »
 01-Oct-2025

    Tags:
  • Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)

Meenakshi Tyagi v. Union of India & Anr 

“Despite clear rulings, lawyers still press writ petitions despite lacking jurisdiction, often citing urgency to persuade the Court at the last minute. ” 

Justice Prateek Jalan 

Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Prateek Jalan deprecated the practice of filing petitions without jurisdiction and warned that costs may be imposed even at the withdrawal stage. The Court dismissed a plea by Meenakshi Tyagi against AIIMS, stressing that such filings waste judicial time and burden litigants. 

  • The Delhi High Court held this in the matter of Meenakshi Tyagi v. Union of India & Anr (2025). 

What was the Background of Meenakshi Tyagi v. Union of India & Anr (2025) ? 

  • The petitioner, Meenakshi Tyagi, instituted writ proceedings against the Union of India and the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) before the Delhi High Court. 
  • The petitioner challenged an order dated 01.09.2025 passed by AIIMS and sought a direction from the Court to permit her to continue in service at AIIMS. 
  • The petitioner had previously approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) by filing Original Application No. 2625/2025 seeking identical relief in respect of the same subject matter. 
  • The order dated 01.09.2025, which forms the subject matter of the present writ petition, was passed by AIIMS pursuant to a direction issued by the Tribunal on 28.07.2025, whereby the Tribunal directed that the matter be treated as a representation to AIIMS. 
  • The Registry of the Delhi High Court had brought to the petitioner's notice that the matter ought to have been filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, given that AIIMS is a notified entity falling within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. 
  • Notwithstanding the Registry's objection, the petitioner filed an application (CM APPL. 61597/2025) seeking listing of the matter without addressing the issue of maintainability before the High Court. 
  • The petitioner contended in the said application that the impugned order dated 01.09.2025 gave rise to a fresh and independent cause of action, thereby justifying the filing of the writ petition before the High Court. 
  • The fundamental issue that arose for consideration was whether the petitioner could maintain the writ petition directly before the Delhi High Court in respect of a service matter falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal.

What were the Court’s Observations?

  • 1. Tribunal's Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Service Matters 
  • The Court observed that AIIMS is a notified entity for the purposes of the Central Administrative Tribunal's jurisdiction, and consequently, matters concerning service disputes arising from AIIMS fall squarely within the Tribunal's adjudicatory domain. 
  • 2. Settled Legal Position on Tribunal Jurisdiction 
  • The Court noted that the legal position established by the seven-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India [(1997) 3 SCC 261] admits of no doubt. In cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, it is impermissible for a litigant to approach the writ Court at the first instance, save where the vires of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, is under challenge. 
  • 3. Persistent Violation Despite Clear Precedents 
  • The Court expressed concern that, despite categorical pronouncements by the Supreme Court and coordinate benches of the Delhi High Court in Parikshit Grewal v. Union of India [2024 SCC OnLine Del 6939] and Manish Kumar v. Union of India [2025 SCC OnLine Del 1519], the Court continues to be confronted with several petitions each week wherein the jurisdictional position is known to counsel, yet the writ petition is nonetheless pressed before the High Court. 
  • 4. Deprecation of Misuse of Urgency 
  • The Court deprecated the practice whereby it is argued that the relief sought is urgent, and a last-minute effort is made to persuade the Court to exercise jurisdiction, notwithstanding the clear jurisdictional bar. Such cases not only jeopardise the litigant's interest by burdening them with unnecessary effort, time, and resources, but also impose an undue burden on the writ Court. 
  • 5. Warning of Costs as Deterrent Measure 
  • The Court was compelled to observe that it may now be necessary to adopt the practice of imposition of costs, even at the stage of withdrawal of the petition, as a deterrent measure to discourage forum shopping and ensure adherence to jurisdictional propriety. 
  • 6. Direction to Bar Association 
  • The Court directed the Registry to forward a copy of the order to the President and Secretary of the Delhi High Court Bar Association before the Court commences the practice of imposition of costs in such cases, thereby putting the Bar on notice of the intended course of action. 
  • 7. Dismissal with Liberty to Approach Proper Forum 
  • The Court dismissed the writ petition, alongwith pending applications, as withdrawn with liberty to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, reiterating that matters falling within the Tribunal's jurisdiction must be agitated before the Tribunal as the court of first instance. 

What is Jurisdiction under Civil Procedure Code,1908 ? 

  • Jurisdiction in Civil Courts 
    • Jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court to hear and determine a case. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, jurisdiction is governed by multiple provisions that define the scope and limits of judicial power. 
  • Section 9 CPC: Foundation of Civil Jurisdiction 
    • Section 9 CPC establishes that courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature, except those where cognizance is expressly or impliedly barred.  
    • This provision forms the foundation of civil court jurisdiction and includes two explanations: firstly, suits concerning rights to property or office are civil in nature even when dependent on religious rites; secondly, the presence or absence of fees attached to an office is immaterial for determining civil nature. 

What are the different types of jurisdiction recognized under CPC? 

  • Territorial Jurisdiction (Sections 16-20 CPC):  
    • This determines the geographical limits within which a court can exercise authority.  
    • Section 16 mandates that suits concerning immovable property must be instituted where the property is situated.  
    • Section 17 addresses properties situated across different jurisdictions, permitting filing in any court where a portion of the property lies. Section 18 handles uncertain jurisdictional boundaries. Section 19 governs suits for wrongs to persons or movable property, allowing filing either where the wrong occurred or where the defendant resides.  
    • Section 20 is the residuary provision covering other suits, requiring filing where the defendant resides, carries on business, or where the cause of action arises. 
  • Pecuniary Jurisdiction (Section 15 CPC): 
    •  This relates to the monetary value of the suit. Section 15 stipulates that suits must be instituted in courts of the lowest grade competent to try them based on the value of the subject matter. 
  • Subject-Matter Jurisdiction:  
    • This concerns a court's competence to hear specific types of cases as prescribed by law. Certain matters may be exclusively assigned to specialised tribunals or courts. 
  • Objections to Jurisdiction (Section 21 CPC):  
    • Section 21(1) provides that objections regarding place of suing must be raised at the earliest opportunity in the trial court, and appellate or revisional courts shall not allow such objections unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.  
    • Section 21(2) and (3) extend similar principles to pecuniary jurisdiction and executing court jurisdiction respectively. 
  • Section 21A bars suits challenging decree validity on grounds of improper place of suing, preventing collateral attacks on jurisdiction. 

Cases Referred  

  • L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)  
    • The seven-Judge Bench held that litigants cannot approach writ courts directly in matters within the Central Administrative Tribunal's jurisdiction, except when challenging the vires of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 itself. 
  • Parikshit Grewal v. Union of India (2024) 
    • The Division Bench held that matters falling within Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act must be agitated before the Tribunal as the court of first instance.  
    • Litigants are completely proscribed from approaching the High Court without first approaching the Tribunal. The Court noted that direct filing in High Courts was reaching endemic proportions despite three decades having passed since L. Chandra Kumar. 
  • Manish Kumar v. Union of India (2025 ) 
    • The Division Bench clarified that "service matters" under Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act include matters relating to conditions of service. Where a litigant has a personal interest affecting their conditions of service, the dispute falls within the Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 19 and must be filed before the Tribunal, not the High Court.