Introduction 

• Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Court, 1908 (CPC) provides that the Courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature excepting suits of which cognizance is expressly or impliedly barred. 
• There are three types of jurisdictions: subject matter, territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction.  
• Section 16- 20 of CPC deals with territorial jurisdiction.   

Territorial Jurisdiction 

• For the purpose of territorial jurisdiction suits may be divided into following categories: 
  • Suits in respect of immovable property (Section 16- Section 18) 
  • Suits in respect of movable property (Section 19) 
  • Suits for compensation for wrong (Section 19) 
  • Other suits (Section 20)    

Suits in Respect of Immovable Property 

Section 16 of CPC 

• Section 16 of CPC provides that the suit is to be instituted where subject matter is situated. This Section applies to following types of suits: 
  • For the recovery of immovable property with or without rent or profits. 
  • For the partition of immovable property. 
  • For foreclosure, sale or redemption in the case of a mortgage of or charge upon immovable property. 
  • For the determination of any other right to or interest in immovable property. 
  • For compensation for wrong to immovable property. 
  • For the recovery of movable property actually under distraint or attachment. 
• Proviso to Section 16 provides for a situation where suit can be instituted in the following places: 
  • Within the local limits of which property is situated 
  • Where the defendant  
    • Actually, and voluntarily resides 
    • Or carries on business 
    • Or personally works for gain 
• Proviso applies to when the suit is for 
  • Relief respecting immovable property or for compensation for wrong to immovable property 
  • Immovable property is held by or on behalf of the defendant 
  • The relief sought can be obtained entirely through his personal obedience 
• Further, Explanation to Section 16 provides that ‘property’ would mean property situated in India. 

Section 17 of CPC 

• Section 17 provides for suits for immovable property when the property is situated within the jurisdiction of different Courts. 
  • This Section provides that when the immovable property is situated within the jurisdiction of different Courts, suit may be instituted in Court within the local limits of which any portion of the property is situated. 
  • The proviso to this Section provides that in respect of the value of the subject matter the entire claim should be cognizable by the Court. This means that the Court should have pecuniary jurisdiction over the matter. 

Section 18 of CPC 

• Section 18 provides for those cases where the local limits of jurisdiction of the Courts are uncertain. 
  • Section 18(1) provides that: 
    • Where it is alleged to be uncertain within the local limits of the jurisdiction of which of two or more Courts, any immovable property is situated 
    • any one of those Courts may 
    • if satisfied that there is ground for the alleged uncertainty 
    • record a statement to that effect 
    • And proceed to entertain and dispose of any suit relating to that property 
    • And the decree shall have the same effect as if the property were situated within the local jurisdiction of that Court 
    • Proviso to this Sub section provides that Court should be competent with regard to the nature and value of the suit to exercise the jurisdiction. 
  • Section 18(2) provides for the consequence when the statement under Sub section (1) has not been recorded and an objection regarding the jurisdiction is taken before the Appellate or Revisional Court. 
    • The Appellate or Revisional Court shall not allow the objection unless in its opinion -  
    • There was no reasonable ground for uncertainty at the time of institution of suit 
    • There has been a consequent failure of justice 

Suits in Respect of Movable Property or Compensation for Wrong to Persons 

• Section 19 of CPC provides for jurisdiction for suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables. 
• The suit can be instituted in either of the following Courts: 
  • Where the defendant 
    • Resides or 
    • Carries on business or 
    • Personally works for gain 
  • Where the wrong done to person or movable property 

Other Suits 

• In the case of Harshad Chiman Lal v. DLF Universal Ltd. (2005), it was held that Section 20 of the CPC leaves no room for doubt that it is a residuary provision and covers those provisions not falling under Section 15 to Section 19 of CPC. 
• Section 20 lays down that subject to the limitations aforesaid every suit shall be instituted within the local limits of whose jurisdiction 
  • the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit,  
    • actually and voluntarily resides, or 
    •  carries on business, or  
    • personally works for gain, OR 
  • any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit,  
    • actually and voluntarily resides, or  
    • carries on business, or  
    • personally works for gain,  
    • Provided that in such case either the  
      • leave of the Court is given, or  
      • the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally works for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution 
  • The cause of action wholly or in part arises 
• Explanation to this Section lays down the rule about Corporation. It provides that: 
  • A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India, or 
  • in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place. 

Objections as to Territorial Jurisdiction 

• It is well settled that as to local jurisdiction of teh Court to try the case does not stand on the same footing as the competency of teh Court to try the suit. 
• Competence of a Court to try the case goes to the root of jurisdiction and where it is lacking it is a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction. 
• However, the objection as to local jurisdiction of the Court can be waived.  
• Section 21 is the statutory recognition of the same and provides that the defect as to place of suing may be waived. 
• Section 21 (1) provides that no objection as to place of suing will be allowed by the Appellate or Revisional Court unless the following three conditions are satisfied: 
  • The objection was taken in the Court of first instance  
  • at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement of issues 
  • There has been a consequent failure of justice  
• The above three conditions must co exist. 

 Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses 

• In the case of exclusive jurisdiction clauses, the parties agree that in case of dispute between them the matter shall be raised exclusively before one forum although several other forums might have jurisdiction. 
• Exclusive jurisdictions occupy a place between an absolute restraint and convenience based forum shopping.  
• In Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd. (1971), the Supreme Court held that the parties cannot by agreement confer jurisdiction on a place that does not possess jurisdiction under the provisions of CPC.  
  • The Court in this case held that when two places have jurisdiction the parties can by agreement confer jurisdiction in one of these places. However, parties cannot by agreement confer jurisdiction on a place that does not possess any jurisdiction in the first place. 
  • The exclusive jurisdiction clause does not violate Section 28 and Section 23 of ICA.  

Conclusion 

Before instituting a suit, it is very important to know the Court within whose jurisdiction the suit ought to be instituted. Territorial jurisdiction is provided under Section 16- Section 20 of CPC. These provisions help the parties to understand as to where the suit should be instituted.