Sneha Chavan

B-86
Module 1. Preliminary, Institutions of Suits ,Bar to
Jurisdiction,Maintainabilty

Q. Res Judicata
Synopsis
1. Introduction
2. History and Origin of Res Judicata
3. Meaning of Res Judicata
4. Objectives of Res Judicata
5. Extent and Applicability
6. Pre-requisites for Res Judicata
7. Nature and scope
8. Principles of Res Judicata
9. Essentials of Res Judicata
10.Exceptions of Res Judicata
11.Constructive Res Judicata
12.Case Laws
13.Conclusion

Introduction
Res Judicata is a phrase which is defined in Section 11 of the Civil Procedure
Code has been evolved from a Latin maxim, which stands that the thing has
been judged which means if an issue is brought in the court and it has already
been decided by another court, between the same parties and which has the
same cause of action then the court will dismiss the case before it as being
useless. The concept of Res Judicata has high significance both in Civil and
Criminal System.

Provision of Section 11 of the enacts that once a matter is finally decided by a

competent court, no party can be permitted to reopen it in subsequent
litigation. The basic objects and operation of Section 11 was rightly pointed and
observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Satyadhan Ghosal vs. Deorajin
Debi[1]
Sneha Chavan
B-86

The Principle of Res-Judicata is based on the meet of giving finality to judicial

decisions, what it says is that once a res judicata, it shall not be adjudicated
again. Primarily, it applies as between past litigation and future litigation, on
the basis of the question of facts or the question of law- has been decided
between the two parties in one suit or proceeding and the decision is final,
either because no appeal was taken to a higher court or because the appeal
got dismissed, or no appeal lies, neither party will be allowed for the execution
of future suit or proceedings between the same parties to canvas the matter
again.

If we breakdown the words of Res Judicata, here the word Res means a subject
matter or dispute between the parties and the other word Judicata means
adjudged or decided or adjudicated, that is the matter is adjudicated or a
dispute is decided.

History and Origin of Res Judicata

The concept of res judicata has evolved from the English Common Law System.
The Common Law system has been derived from the overriding concept of
judicial consistency. Res judicata took its place first in the Code of Civil Procedure
from Common Law and then into the Indian Legal System. If either of the parties
in a case approaches the same court for the judgment of the same issue then
the suit will be struck by the doctrine of res judicata. Res judicata plays a role in
administrative law as well. It helps to administer how efficiently the Judiciary
works and disposes of the case. The doctrine of res judicata becomes applicable
where there is more than one petition filed in the same or in some other court
of India with the same parties and same facts. The parties involved in a case may
file the same suit again just to harass the reputation of the opposite party and
may do to get compensation twice. So to prevent such overloads and extra
cases, the doctrine of res judicata plays a major role and importance in the Code
of Civil Procedure.

Earlier res judicata was termed as Purva Nyaya or former judgment by the Hindu
lawyers and Muslim jurists according to ancient Hindu Law. The countries of the
Commonwealth and the European Continent have accepted that once the
matter has been brought to trial once, it must not be tried again. The principle
of res judicata is originated from the Seventh Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution. It addresses the finality of judgments in a civil jury trial. Once a
Sneha Chavan
B-86
court has rendered a verdict in a civil trial, it cannot be changed by another court
except there are very specific conditions.

MEANING:
Res mean subject or a thing and judicata means decided. Thus res judicata
means things decided. It provides that once a matter is finally heard and decided
between the parties, such matter will not allow to be agitated among the same
parties and earlier decision of the court will attach finality in respect of the
matter decided. Under Roman law it is known as ex captio res judicata which
signifies previous or former judgement. Res Judicata as a concept is applicable
both in case of Civil as well as the Criminal legal system. The term is also used to
mean as to ‘bar re-litigation’ of such cases between the same parties, which is
different between the two legal systems. Once a final judgment has been
announced in a lawsuit, the subsequent judges who are confronted with a suit
that is identical to or substantially the same as the earlier one, they would apply
the Res Judicata doctrine ‘to preserve the effect of the first judgment’. This is to
prevent injustice to the parties of a case supposedly finished, but perhaps mostly
to avoid unnecessary waste of resources and time of the Judicial System. In
Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorijin Debi1, the Supreme Court held that principle of
res judicata is based on the need of giving finality to judicial decisions. Primarily
it applies between past litigation and future litigation.

Res Judicata example

• ‘A’ sued ‘B’ as he didn’t pay rent. ‘B’ pleaded for the lessening of rent on
the ground as the area of the land was less than the mentioned on the
lease. The Court found that the area was greater than shown in the lease.
The area was excess and the principles of res judicata will not be applied.
• In a case, ‘A’ new lawsuit was filed in which the defendants requested that
the Court dismiss the lawsuit with a plea of res judicata. She was barred
from bringing a claim of res judicata because her previous claim was
dismissed for fraud. The Court said that the defence of res judicata must
be proved by evidence.
Sneha Chavan
B-86
Objectives of Res Judicata:
The doctrine of res judicata is based on certain maxims, which are the following:

1. Nemo debet lis vexari pro eadem causa:

This maxim states that ‘no person is tried twice in a similar kind of suit’. It is
applicable in both types of suits, civil and criminal, to put an end to the litigation
process. Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution also says that no person shall be
prosecuted and punished twice.

2. Interest republicae ut sit finis litium:

The meaning of the maxim is that there should be an end to litigation since it is
in the interests of the nation.

3. Re judicata pro veritate occipitur:

It means a judicial decision must be accepted as it is.

Extent and Applicability:

The doctrine of res judicata is a fundamental concept based on public policy
and private interest. This doctrine is applicable to civil suits, execution
proceedings, arbitration proceedings, taxation matters, industrial adjudication,
writ petitions, administrative orders, interim orders, criminal proceedings, etc.
Thus, this doctrine is not exhaustive in nature.

Principle of Res Judicata

The principle of res judicata seeks to promote the fair administration of justice
and honesty and to prevent the law from abuse. The principle of res judicata
applies when a litigant attempts to file a subsequent lawsuit on the same matter,
after having received a judgment in a previous case involving the same parties.
In many jurisdictions, this applies not only to the specific claims made in the first
case but also to claims that could have been made during the same case.
Sneha Chavan
B-86

Pre-requisites for Res Judicata

Prerequisites of res judicata includes:

• A judicial decision by proficient court or tribunal,

• Final and binding and
• Any decision made on the merits
• A fair hearing
• Earlier decision right or wrong is not relevant.

Nature and Scope of Res Judicata

Res judicata includes two concepts of claim preclusion and issue preclusion.
Issue preclusion is also known as collateral estoppel. Parties cannot sue each
other again after the final judgment on the basis of merits has reached in civil
litigation. For example, if a plaintiff wins or loses a case against the defendant in
the case say A, he cannot probably sue the defendant again in case B based on
the same facts and events. Not even in a different court with the same facts and
events. Whereas in issue preclusion it prohibits the relitigation of issues of law
that have already been determined by the judge as part of an earlier case.

The scope has been decided in the case of Gulam Abbas v. State of Uttar
Pradesh. I this case the court incorporated the rules as evidence as a plea of an
issue already tries in an earlier case. Judgment of this case was difficult as the
judges should apply res judicata. It was decided that res judicata is not
exhaustive and even if the matter is not directly covered under the provisions of
the section it will be considered as a case of res judicata on general principles.

Res Judicata in simpler form as defined under Section 11:

Where a matter (matter is the main cause of action i.e. direct and substantial) is
being agitatedbefore a court (present or subsequent court) between two parties
and if it is proved that thesame matter was directly or substantially in issue in a
previous suit in a court (previous orformer court) of competent jurisdiction and
the court has already heard (evidence taken) anddecided (judgement
Sneha Chavan
B-86
pronounced) that matter, then the court in which it is currently instituted is
barred to try the matter so agitated.
This feature is known as Res Judicata i.e. the matter is already adjudged
therefore needs no re-adjudication.Thus, the necessary ingredients are that,

• The matter in both the suits must be directly or substantially the same.
• The former and subsequent court must be competent to try such matter
• The parties to both the suits must be same in legal sense i.e. even if the
parties are not exactly the same but whoever they are, they represent or are in
character of the parties concerned in the previous suit.
• The rule of res judicata is based on public policy and conclusiveness and
finality of adjudication and thus prevents multiplicity of proceedings and
possibility of existence of two findings regarding the same subject matter

Explanation to Section 11:

I. Former suit means suit decided prior to the suit in question. It is immaterial
whether the subsequent suit is instituted prior to the suit decided or not.
II. The competence of court shall not be determined upon the existence of a
right to appeal.
III. The matter which is in question in a subsequent suit must be a matter in
issue in former suit (it is also known as Direct Res Judicata).
IV. It is an artificial form of Res Judicata and provides that if a plea could have
been taken by a party in a proceeding between him and his opponent, he
should not be permitted to take that plea against the same party in a
subsequent proceeding with reference to same subject matter (also known as
Constructive Res Judicata).
V. Any relief claimed not expressly granted in decree shall be deemed to be
refused andshall be barred in another suit by Res Judicata.
VI. Where the person is suing or being sued in respect of a public right or of a
private right claimed in common for themselves and others, then all person
interested in such right shall deemed to claim under persons so litigating (this
provides for res judicata in Representative suit).
VII. Execution proceedings are covered under this section. Proceedings for
execution of decree, question arising in execution proceedings and in former
proceedings for execution shall deemed to be suit, issue and former suit
Sneha Chavan
B-86
respectively.
VIII. An issue heard and decide by a court of limited or special jurisdiction
including pecuniary jurisdiction will operate as a Res Judicata in a subsequent
suit or proceeding, even if such court of limited jurisdiction was not competent
to try such subsequent suit.

Essential Conditions of Section 11 of CPC

There are certain conditions for the applicability of the Doctrine of Res Judicata
under Section 11 of the CPC. The following conditions must be met with to avail
the plea of Res Judicata.

1. Both the suits must be between the same parties or their representative.
If the parties to both the suits are different there would lie no ground for
the application of the doctrine of Res Judicata. Both, the parties as well as
their privies will be bound by Res Judicata.
2. They should prosecute under the same title. This refers to the capacity of
the party.
3. The matter directly and substantially in issue in both the suits must be
related or, the issue directly and substantially in issue in the ensuing suit
should likewise be directly and substantially in issue in the previous suit.
4. For the application of doctrine of Res Judicata, it is essential to ensure that
the matter in the former or previous suit was heard and decided.
Therefore, where the suit was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to
appear or on technical defect, or on the ground for misjoinder of parties,
etc., the doctrine of res judicata would not be applicable in the
subsequent suit.
5. The court that decided the previous suit has the competency to decide
the subsequent suit. This doctrine will be devoid of any significant bearing
where the order was passed without jurisdiction. The underlying principle
for this condition is that the court having limited jurisdiction cannot bind
a court to have larger jurisdiction by its decision.

Exceptions to the Doctrine of Res Judicata

There are certain exceptions to the doctrine of res judicata and these are as
follows: The doctrine of res judicata restricts the parties from re-filing the
litigation procedure, but there are certain circumstances when this doctrine is
not applicable.
Sneha Chavan
B-86
1. When the decree and order have been obtained by committing fraud and
misrepresentation of the facts or issues.
2. When the judgment is not pronounced on the merits.
3. When the special leave petition was dismissed without making a
proclamation or determination of the judgment.
4. When the subsequent lawsuits have a different cause of action. If a later
lawsuit has a separate cause of action, the court cannot dismiss it.
5. When the court did not have competent jurisdiction in the former suit.
6. When there is a question of law.
7. When an interlocutory order had been passed in a former suit.
8. If there is any amendment to an existing law that grants new rights to the
party then the doctrine will not apply.
9. When the suit was dismissed by default.
10.If the party does not raise a plea for res judicata.

Constructive Res Judicata

The rule of constructive res judicata in Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code is
an artificial form of res judicata. It provides that if a plea has been taken by a
party in a proceeding between him and the defendant he will not be permitted
to take pleas against the same party in the following proceeding with reference
to the same matter. It is opposed to public policies on which the principle of res
judicata is based. It would mean harassment and hardship to the defendant. The
rule of constructive res judicata helps in raising the bar. Hence this rule is known
as the rule of constructive res judicata which in reality is an aspect of
augmentation of the general principles of res judicata.

In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Nawab Hussain, M was a sub-inspector

and was dismissed from the service of D.I.G. he challenged the order of dismissal
by filing a writ petition in the High Court. He said that he did not get a reasonable
opportunity of being heard before the passing of the order. However, the
argument was negatived and the petition was dismissed. He again filed a
petition on the ground that he was appointed by the I.G.P. and had no power to
dismiss him. The defendant argued that the suit was barred by constructive res
judicata. However, the trial court, the first appellate court as well as the High
Court held that the suit was not barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The
Supreme Court held that the suit was barred by constructive res judicata as the
plea was within the knowledge of the plaintiff, M and he could have taken this
argument in his earlier suit.
Sneha Chavan
B-86
The doctrine of constructive res judicata has been incorporated in Explanation
IV to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Explanation IV provides
that all those matters that ought to have been made a ground of defence or
attached to a suit but were omitted, will also be deemed to have been directly
or substantially in issue in such a suit. If a party fails to raise a reasonable ground
of defence or attack during a suit, then such an issue is presumed to have been
decided against the defaulting party.

Every judicial action has its foundation in a cause of action. When the courts
pronounce a final order, the cause of action is deemed extinguished. Thus, the
same cause of action cannot be agitated again in order to claim relief that should
have been claimed in the initial suit. The cause of action cannot survive the
judgement and is deemed to have been merged in the judgement.

Case Laws on Doctrine of Res Judicata

The following are a few case laws related to the Doctrine of Res Judicata:

Daryao v. State of UP, AIR 1961 SC 1457

In this case, the Apex Court placed this doctrine on a higher footing, considering
and treating the binding character of the judgments pronounced by competent
courts as an essential part of the rule of law.

Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd. & Anr. v. Janapada Sabha Chhindwara & Ors., AIR
1964 SC 1013

The court held that the general principle of doctrine of res judicata applies to
writ petitions filed under Article 32 and 226. Further, the court ensured that the
application of this doctrine to the petitions filed under Article 32, does not in
any way impair the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens. It only seeks
to regulate the manner in which the said rights could be successfully asserted
and vindicated in courts of law.
Sneha Chavan
B-86
State of Karnataka v. All India Manufacturers Organisation & Ors., AIR 2006 SC
1846

In this case, it was held that the doctrine of Res Judicata would be applicable to
a Public Interest Litigation, provided the earlier case was a genuine and a bona
fide litigation as the judgement in the earlier case would be a judgement in rem.

Conclusion
While discussing the doctrine of Res Judicata, it is essential to realize that the
main objective behind this doctrine is to prevent multiplicity of suits, to ensure
the court’s resources are not being misused or wasted, to prevent injustice by
ensuring that there is no unnecessary recovery of damages twice for the same
matter. Perpetual litigation would do no good to society at large. The Doctrine
of Res Judicata must be applied mindfully. We must realize that this doctrine has
a very wide scope and the application of which is constantly changing and
evolving.

Q. Res sub judice

Synopsis
1. Introduction
2. Meaning
3. Nature and Scope
4. Object of Res Subjudice
5. Essential Elements of Res Subjudice:
6. Conclusion

Introduction
The judiciary always refers to certain principles, doctrines, and precedents to
pronounce judgment in any suit. These doctrines play an immense role to make
the judiciary work efficiently and pace the speed of delivering judgment. In our
country, the litigation process is very time-consuming and expensive due to the
Sneha Chavan
B-86
large number of cases filed every day. Hence, there are two doctrines, i.e., res
judicata and res sub judice, under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which
aim to provide efficiency and speedy process during proceedings.

Doctrine of Res subjudice is an important doctrine provided under section 10 of

the Code of Civil Procedure (the code), which deals with stay of civil suits, it
provides that no court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter
in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previous instituted suit
between the same parties and the court in which the previous suit is pending is
competent to grant the relief which is claimed. ‘Res’ means matter or litigation
and ‘subjudice’ means pending hence ‘res subjudice’ means that matter is
pending before a competent court for adjudication.

Meaning
Res means every object of right that forms the subject matter in a particular
case. In Latin, the term Sub-judice means ‘under a judge’ or in other words, a
matter ‘under consideration’. It means a cause that is under trial or pending
before a court or judge. The doctrine of res-judicata prevents the trial of a suit
which is already pending in a court of competent jurisdiction. When the same
parties file two or three cases in the same matter, the competent court has the
power to stay proceedings of another court. The primary aim is to prohibit the
courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously entertaining two parallel
litigations.

Example:

A wife filed a suit for separation of conjugal life and custody of a minor child
against husband B. subsequently, husband B claimed custody of a minor child by
filing another suit against the wife A. Here the second suit is liable to stay under
section 10 of CPC, because in both the suit the parties are same, the subject
matter is also the same, the court is also competent to try the suits and there is
also a previously instituted suit that is pending in the court.

Nature and Scope

This doctrine applies to the trial of suit and not merely for the institution of the
suit, and it does not prevent a court from passing interim orders for the grant of
injunction or stay, it applies to appeals and revisions. The doctrine of Res
Sneha Chavan
B-86
subjudice means the stay of the suit under section 10 of the code. This section
is applicable only when the matter in the controversy is the same.

The subsequent suit cannot be dismissed but is only stayed. The word ‘suit’
ordinarily means a civil proceeding instituted by way of presentation of a plaint.
It is not defined in the code. In Pandurang Ramchandra vs. Shantibai
Ramchandra, the Supreme Court has stated ‘suit is to be understood to apply on
any proceeding in a court of justice by which an individual pursues that remedy
which the law affords.’

Explanation to this rule under section 10 clearly provides that the pendency of
a suit in foreign courts does not prevent the courts in India from trying a suit
founded on the same cause of action. There is no bar on the power of an Indian
court to try a subsequently instituted suit even if a suit which is previously
instituted is pending in a foreign court. A foreign court is defined under section
2(5) of the code as ‘any court which is situated outside India and not established
under or continued by the authority of the Central Government.’

Object of Res Subjudice

The doctrine of res sub judice also aims to save the judiciary time from
unnecessary suits. Apart from this, there are a few more objectives of the
doctrine which are as follows:

1. It allows the plaintiff to file one suit for all the issues and facts against the
same defendant.
2. Avoid contradictory decisions on a similar matter in issue.
3. Stop the courts with concurrent jurisdiction from concurrently hearing
and making decisions on two parallel lawsuits involving the same claim,
same issue, and similar remedy.
4. Protect the defendant from paying compensation or damages twice.
5. Prevent unnecessary confusion.

The essentials of res sub judice are as follows:

1. There must be two civil suits between the same parties.
2. The former suit is pending before the competent court for final decision
and the subsequent suit is brought.
3. The subsequent suit is also filed under a similar title to the former suit.
4. Any suit that is pending in a foreign court does not invoke Section 10 of
the Code.
Sneha Chavan
B-86
5. If the subsequent application is filed before the Tahsildar and the suit is
pending before the court, then it will fall under the scope of the doctrine.
6. The date of the plaint presentation is considered for the institution of the
suit, and the appeal is also included in the suit.
7. The court must have the inherent power to stay the proceedings.
8. If a decree is passed for violation of Section 10 will be null and void.
9. The parties can waive their right under Section 10.
10.The court has the power to pass interim orders.

Exceptions tp Res Sub Judice

There are certain cases where the doctrine of res sub judice is not applicable.
These are as follows:

1. When the claims in each suit are unique from one another.
2. When there are both common and unique issues, then this rule does not
apply.
3. When there are different issues between the same parties.
4. All of the issues from the earlier suit don’t have to be raised in the later
litigation for Section 10 to be applicable.

Consolidation of suits:-
As per section 10 of CPC, the main objective is to avoid
two conflicting decisions, a court in an appropriate case can pass an order to the
consolidation of both the suits.

Inherent power to stay:-

A civil court has inherent power to stay a suit under
section 151, even where the provisions of sec.10 of the Code do not strictly
apply, to achieve the ends of justice. Similarly, a court has an inherent power of
consolidation of two suits where res sub-judice applies.

Case Law
In Escorts Const. Equipment Ltd v. Action Const. Equipments Ltd (1998), the
Delhi High Court observed that to invoke Section 10 of the Code, there must be
a matter at issue and the parties are the same in a former and subsequent suit;
a former lawsuit that was filed in a court with the jurisdiction to grant the
desired relief, whether it was in the same court or another.
Sneha Chavan
B-86
In Indian Bank v. Maharashtra State Co-Operative Marketing Federation
(1998), the Supreme Court stated that the purpose of the doctrine of res sub
judice is to avoid contradictory rulings on the subject at hand by preventing
courts with jurisdiction from trying two parallel matters at once.

In the case of Arumugha Udayar Rep. by Power v. Lakshmi (2005), the Madras
High Court stated that to invoke Section 10 of the Code, there must be four
essential conditions:

1. The matter at issue in the second lawsuit is also, significantly and directly
at issue in the first lawsuit;
2. The parties involved in the second lawsuit are the same as the parties
under whom they claimed to act on their behalf or any of them;
3. The second lawsuit’s relief is admissible in the court where the initial
lawsuit was filed;
4. The previous suit must be pending in the competent court, or any court
situated in India, or the Supreme Court, or any court, or in any court
established or formed by the Central Government outside of India.

Conclusion
The doctrine of res-subjudice is an important one and essential in order to
reduce the burden from the courts and also to safeguard the interest of the
litigating parties by avoiding double litigation and repetition of the proceedings.
It also avoids conflicting and contradicting decisions by the courts and to ensure
minimum utilization of the court resources and saves the time of the courts. It
also keeps a check on the misuse of the rights in order to get double benefits by
instituting same cases twice.
Sneha Chavan
B-86
Key differences between res judicata and res sub judice
Grounds of
S.R.No. Res judicata Res sub judice
difference

It means a matter is already

It applies to the pending suit. It
decided and can not be heard
bars parallel proceedings. Res sub
1. Meaning again. Res judicata prevents a
judice prevents parallel
second trial of the formerly
proceedings on the same matter.
settled disputes.

2. Provisions Section 11 of CPC Section 10 of CPC

Res judicata is applicable to the Res sub judice is applicable to the

3. Applicability
suits and applications. suit and appeals.

1. There must be presence of

1. A court of competent two suits one which was
jurisdiction must have formerly instituted and
given the decision in the other which was
former instituted suit. subsequently instituted.
2. The matter in issue in the 2. The issues in the
subsequent suit must be subsequent suit should be
same which is directly or directly or substantially be
substantially in issue in the same with the
the former suit. previous suit.
3. The parties should be 3. The parties in both the
4. Essentials same in both the suits. suits should be same.
4. The court which gave 4. The court in which the
decision in former suit previous suit was
must be a court of instituted must be a court
competent jurisdiction. which has competent
5. The parties in the former jurisdiction to try such
suit must have litigated suit.
under the same title or in 5. The title should also be
other words in the same the same in both the suits
capacity. under which they are
litigating.

The end of the litigation Prohibit parallel proceedings

5. Aim
proceedings. between the same parties.
Sneha Chavan
B-86

Q. Explain Jurisdiction of Civil Courts and Kinds of Jurisdiction

Synopsis
1) Introduction
2) Meaning of Jurisdiction
3) Kinds of Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
• 3.1) Original Jurisdiction
• 3.2) Appellate Jurisdiction
• 3.3) Foreign Jurisdiction
• 3.4) Exclusive Jurisdiction
• 3.5) Concurrent Jurisdiction
• 3.6) Territorial Jurisdiction
• 3.7) Pecuniary Jurisdiction
• 3.8) Jurisdiction as to Subject Matter
4) Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code
5) Objections to Jurisdiction
6) Transfer of suit instituted in more than one Court
7) Where does Application given in Section 22 lie?
8) General Power of transfer
9) Power of Supreme Court to transfer
10) Conclusion
Sneha Chavan
B-86

Introduction
It is a well-known fact that jurisdiction is a key component in determining
whether or not the court has the power to adjudicate the case. Without a clear
understanding of the jurisdiction, one cannot proceed with a case. Unless and
until it is determined that the court has the power and authority to adjudicate
the matter, the case cannot move forward. Jurisdiction means the power or
authority conferred by the law upon the court, tribunal or judge to decide or
adjudicate any dispute between the parties or pass judgment or order.

The very fundamental principle that is being followed by everyone and also
attached with the law profession is Ubi Jes Ibi Remedium which means where
there is right there is a remedy. The Jurisdiction basically applies where the
Offence has been committed. The meaning and concept of Jurisdiction is not
explained in the Code of Civil Procedure.

Meaning of jurisdiction
Jurisdiction is defined as the limit of judicial authority or extent to which a court
of law can exercise its authority over suits, cases, appeals etc. A 1921 Calcutta
High Court judgement in the case of Hriday Nath Roy Vs Ram Chandra sought to
explain the meaning of the term ‘Jurisdiction’ in detail. An investigation of the
cases in the texts shows several attempts to explain the word Jurisdiction which
has been declared to be the power to hear and determine the issues of law and
the fact or the authority by which their judicial powers take knowledge of facts
and decide causes or the authority to hear and decide the legal dispute or the
power to hear and determine the subject matter in the dispute among the
parties to a suit and to adjudicate or exercise any judicial power over them or
the ability to hear, determine and declare judgement on issues before the court
or the power or authority which is given to a court by government to understand
and learn causes between parties and to give a judgement into the effect or the
power to enquire into the facts to apply the law to pronounce the Judgement
and put it into execution.
Sneha Chavan
B-86

Kinds of jurisdiction

Jurisdiction as to the subject matter

The subject matter can be defined as the authority vested in a court to
understand and try cases concerning a special type of subject matter. In other
words, it means that some courts are banned from hearing cases of a certain
nature. No question of choices can be decided by the court which do not have
subject matter jurisdiction. Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure is related
to the stage challenging the jurisdiction. For Example, “Ranveer”, a resident of
Sonipat bought a food item of ‘AA’ brand that was plagued with pests. He should
prosecute ‘ZZ’ company in Sonipat District forum rather than District Civil Court
of Sonipat.

Territorial or local jurisdiction

Under this territorial or local jurisdiction, the geographical limits of a court’s
authority are clearly delineated and specified. It cannot exercise authority
beyond that geographical/ territorial limit. For example, if a certain crime is
committed in Madhya Pradesh, only the courts of law within the borders of
Madhya Pradesh can hear and decide the case. Furthermore, Section 16 of the
Code of Civil Procedure explains the territorial jurisdiction on the grounds of the
location of the immovable property. In the case of Harshad Chiman Lal Modi Vs
D.L.F Universal Ltd , the court interpreted Section 16 that the suit pertaining to
immovable property should be brought to the court. The court does not have
the power to decide the rights of property which are not situated. However, the
court can still pass a relief if the opposite party agrees to try the suit in such a
case.

Pecuniary jurisdiction
Pecuniary means ‘related to capital.’ It approaches the question of whether the
court is competent to try the case of the financial value. The code allows
analysing the case unless the suit’s value exceeds the financial limit of the court.
Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure commands the organisation of the suit
in the court of the low grade. It refers to pecuniary jurisdiction of Civil court. It
Sneha Chavan
B-86
is a course of the method and it does not affect the jurisdiction of the court. The
main objective of establishing pecuniary jurisdiction is to prevent the court of a
higher level from getting burdened and to provide assistance to the parties.
However, the court shall interfere if it finds the judgment to be wrong. For
example, ’A ’wants to accuse ‘B’ due to a violation of the contract to obtain Rs
5000 in Bombay. The Bombay High Court has original jurisdiction and small
causes court with the jurisdiction up to Rs 50000. So, a suit to obtain Rs 5000
should ideally be dealt with small causes court.

In the case of Karan Singh Vs Chaman Paswan the plaintiff filed a suit in the
subordinate court involving an amount of Rs 2950, but the court rejected the
case. Later his next appeal was allowed by the High Court, but it ordered him to
pay the deficit amount. The appellant contested that the decision of the district
court will be a nullity, but the High Court dismissed the claim. Later the Supreme
Court confirmed the decision of the High Court declaring that the decision of
district court won’t be void.

Original and appellate jurisdiction

Appellate jurisdiction refers to the court’s authority to review or rehearsal the
cases that have been already decided in the lower courts. In the Indian
circumstances, both the High Court and Supreme Court have the appellate
jurisdiction to take the subjects that are bought in the form of appeals.

Original Jurisdiction refers to the court’s authority to take notice of cases that
could be decided in these courts in the first instance itself. Unlike appellate
jurisdiction wherein courts review the previously decided matter, here the cases
are heard afresh.

Exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction

In Civil Procedure, exclusive jurisdiction means where a single court has the
authority to decide a case to the rejection of all the courts. This jurisdiction is
decided on the basis of the subject matter dealt with by a specific court. For
example, the U.S District courts have particular jurisdiction on insolvency topics.

Concurrent jurisdiction exists where two or more courts from different systems
simultaneously have jurisdiction over a particular case. In this situation, parties
will try to have their civil or criminal case heard in the court that they perceive
will be most favourable to them.
Sneha Chavan
B-86
General and special jurisdiction
General jurisdiction means that general courts do not limit themselves to
hearing only one type of cases. This type of jurisdiction means that a court has
the power to hear all types of cases. So the court that has general jurisdiction
can hear criminal, civil, family court case and much more.

Specific jurisdiction is the ability of the court to hear a lawsuit in a state other
than the defendant’s home state if that defendant has minimum contacts within
the state where the suit will be tried.

Legal and equitable jurisdiction

Equitable jurisdiction belongs to the authorities of the courts to take specific
actions and pass some orders in order to deliver an equitable and reasonable
outcome. These judgments are usually outside the purview of law, in the sense
that support provided by the courts may not be necessarily confirmed by the
statue. In the case of K.K.Velusamy Vs N.Palanisamy, the Supreme Court of
India held that Section 151 does not give any special jurisdiction to civil courts,
but only presents for the application of discretionary power to achieve the ends
of justice. This suggests that the court cannot give any such order which may be
denied under any law in such an order that may be prohibited under any law in
order to achieve the ends of justice. This would lead to the conclusion that such
equitable jurisdiction is secondary to the authority of the courts to implement
the law.

Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code- Jurisdiction of civil

court
Section 9 of CPC

Section 9 of the Code of Civil procedure deals with the jurisdiction of civil courts
in India. It declares that the court shall have jurisdiction to try all lawsuits of civil
nature accepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly
barred.
Sneha Chavan
B-86
Conditions

A Civil court has jurisdiction to decide a suit if two requirements are fulfilled:

1. The suit must be of a civil nature.

2. The cognizance of such a suit should not have been expressly or impliedly
barred.

i) The suit of civil nature

A suit of civil nature may be one that is concerned with private rights and
obligations. For example, suit for dissolution of marriage, suit for rent, etc. It is
extremely important to note that although a suit in which the principal question
with respect to caste or religion is not a suit of a civil nature, but if the main
question in a suit is that of a civil nature and if the adjudication incidentally
involves the determination relating to a caste question or to rights relating to
religion, it will not cease to be suit of a civil nature and the jurisdiction of a civil
court is not barred.

In the case of Shankar Narayanan Potti vs K. Sreedevi, the Supreme Court held
that the ‘Civil Court has primary jurisdiction in all types of civil matters as per
Section 9 of CPC unless the action is expressly or impliedly barred.” This means
that Legislature can defeat the jurisdiction of the civil court by adding a provision
or clause in any Act itself.

In the case of Shri Panch Nagar Park vs Purushottam Das it was held that if
there are no specific terms in any statute the court needs to look into design,
plan and suitable provisions of the Act in order to find implied dismissal of the
jurisdiction of a civil court.

ii) Cognizance not barred

A claimant having a complaint of a civil nature has the power to begin a civil suit
unless its cognizance is barred, either expressly or impliedly.

Suits expressly barred

A suit is said to expressly barred when it is prohibited by the statute for the time
being in force. It is subject to the competent legislature to bar the jurisdiction of
civil courts with regard to a specific class of suits of civil nature, provided that,
in doing so it retains itself within the scope of legislation given to it and does not
contradict any terms of the constitution.
Sneha Chavan
B-86
Suits impliedly barred

A suit is said to be impliedly barred when it is said to be excluded by general

principles of law. When a specific remedy is given by statute, it, therefore, denies
a person who requires a remedy of any different form than is given by statute.
When an act formed an obligation and made its performance in a specified
manner that performance cannot be implemented in any other manner.

In the case of Raja Ram Kumar v. Union of India[i], while referring to the
“impliedly barred” part of Section 9, the Supreme Court made an observation
that in a situation where a common law remedy exists and is recognized by the
statute and if a new statutory remedy is added that does not expressly bar the
civil court’s jurisdiction, then the common law remedy as well as statutory
remedy might be available.

Objections to Jurisdiction
Section 21 of the CPC provides that no objection as to the place of suing or the
pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction or the competence of the executing Court with
reference to the local limits of its jurisdiction, shall be allowed by Appellate or
Revisional Authorities unless objection of such nature was taken in the Court of
first instance at the earliest and unless there has been a consequent failure of
justice.

Transfer of suit instituted in more than one Court

Section 22 of the CPC provides for the power to transfer suit which may be
instituted in more than one Court. When a suit may be instituted in any one of
two or more Courts and is instituted in one of such Courts, any defendants may
apply to have the suit transferred to another Court, after giving notice to other
party. Then if the other party has any objections, the court may consider those
objections and determine in which of the several Courts having jurisdiction the
suit shall proceed.

Where does Application given in Section 22 lie?

Section 23 of the CPC answers this question. If there arises a situation where
various Courts having jurisdiction are subordinate to the same Appellate Court,
then an application under section 22 would lie to the Appellate Court. If these
courts are subordinate to different Appellate Courts but to the same High Court,
the application lies to the said High Court. Lastly, if Courts are subordinate to
Sneha Chavan
B-86
various other High Courts, then the application would lie to the High Court in
whose jurisdiction the Court in which the suit is brought is situated.

General Power of transfer

As per section 24 of the CPC, if either of the parties applies for a transfer, the
High Court or District court may after notice and hearing the parties or on its
own without such notice transfer a suit, appeal or other proceeding before it for
trial or dispose to any court that is competent and subordinate to it, withdraw
any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court subordinate to it, and
try or dispose of the same or transfer it for trial or disposal to any Court
subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same or retransfer it
for trial or disposal to the Court from which it was withdrawn.

Power of Supreme Court to transfer

As per section 25 of the CPC, the supreme court on the application of either
parties, providing notice and hearing if desired to be heard, if deems fit that an
order under this section is expedient for the ends of justice, direct the suit,
appeal or other proceeding be transferred from a High Court or other Civil Court
in a State to a High Court or other Civil Court in another State. If the Supreme
court while dismissing an application thinks it is frivolous then may order the
applicant to pay compensation to the person who opposed.

Conclusion
Civil court has jurisdiction to investigate whether tribunal and quasi-judicial
bodies or legal executive acted within their jurisdiction. It can be presumed that
section 9 essentially deals with the issue of the civil court’s jurisdiction to
consider a matter. Civil court has jurisdiction to consider a suit of civil nature
except when it’s notification is expressly barred or bared by significant
suggestion. Civil court has jurisdiction to resolve the problem of its jurisdiction.
Sneha Chavan
B-86
Q. Meaning & Essentials of Suit
Introduction
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, governs the conduct of civil proceedings in
India. It is crucial to ascertain the court's jurisdiction under Section 9 and the
location of the lawsuit under Section 18 of the CPC prior to filing a civil
complaint. The institution of the lawsuit under Section 26 of the CPC is the first
stage in the civil litigation process. The provisions of filing a lawsuit under
Section 26 of the CPC

What is Suit?
The definition of "suit" is broad. The lawsuits brought pursuant to CPC 1908
differ slightly from ordinary civil lawsuits. Under the CPC, lawsuits are started
by presenting a plaint with a specific format, but other lawsuits, including those
for divorce, are started by simply presenting a petition on behalf of either
spouse.

What is Suit under CPC, 1908?

According to the CPC, 1908, the word "suit" is not defined. It is generally
accepted that it refers to a process that begins when a civil court is presented
with a complaint. The relief sought is specifically stated in a plaint, which is a
written statement of a cause of action. A suit, according to Black's Law
Dictionary, is a legal action brought by one or more parties against another.

• The suits filed under the CPC, 1908, and the other suits filed under
various legislative enactments typically appear to differ just slightly. A
plaint is used to initiate a civil action in a suit filed under the Civil
Procedure Code of 1908, as opposed to other suits, such as marital
proceedings, which are initiated through different means.
o In Ganesh Narain Saboo v. Ethiopian Airlines (2011), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court said that the term "suit" is a general phrase that
incorporates all measures to be done by a person to enforce a
legal right that has been granted to them by law.
Sneha Chavan
B-86
Essentials of Suit
There are four essentials of suit which are explained below-

Parties

The plaintiff who files the lawsuit and the defendant against whom the plaintiff
makes the claim must be at least two opposing parties in order for the claim to
be heard. On either side, there are no numerical limitations. The filing of a
complaint initiates every lawsuit. Plaintiffs, their representatives, authorized
agents, or attorneys acting on their behalf must file a complaint.

• Order 1, Rule 1: of the CPC, which describes the plaintiffs' joining the
case. Any person may file a lawsuit as a plaintiff if they have a claim for
relief based on a single act, a string of acts or transactions that are
alleged to have occurred jointly, severally, or alternatively, or if there is a
common issue of law or fact.
• Order 1, Rule 3: of the CPC, describes how the defendants were added
to the lawsuits. All people may join as defendants in a suit when any
claim to relief is alleged to exist against defendants arising out of the
same conduct, transaction, or sequence of acts or transactions, or when
any common question of law or fact would arise if separate suits were
brought against the defendants.
Sneha Chavan
B-86
Subject Matter

To grant the plaintiff the requested relief, there must be a subject matter, or a
group of facts, that must be established. The plan of action is part of it. For the
plaintiff to successfully file his complaint and receive the remedy requested in
the complaint, the subject matter may be either moveable or immovable
property, and the plaintiff must provide data regarding the same in the
complaint.

• Examples: The subject matter of a lawsuit filed to reclaim real estate,

whether or not it is being rented out, is the real estate itself.
• The subject matter of a lawsuit filed to recover damages for harm done
to a single moveable item is that item itself.

Cause of Action

The list of grounds upon which a court case is brought is known as a cause of
action. A lawsuit might be started based on a specific collection of facts or
accusations. All information about rights and their infringement is included. A
cause of action is required by Order II, Rule 2 of the CPC, in order to start a
lawsuit, and the complaint must include the cause of action.

• The Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled in Rajasthan High Court Advocates

Association v. Union of India & Ors. (2000) that the term “cause of
Sneha Chavan
B-86
action" had a defined meaning in the law. It speaks of the circumstances
surrounding the violation or the root cause of the behavior. In a broader
sense, it refers to the requirements for the suit to be kept alive, which
comprise both the violation of the right and the right itself, as well as
both of these. and condensed the phrase to all of the facts that the
plaintiff would need to prove in order to support his claim in the court's
ruling.

Relief
Legal redress for wrong is called relief. Every lawsuit must, to the greatest
extent possible, be structured in accordance with Rule 1 of Order 2 to provide
a basis for a final determination of the issues in dispute and to halt further
litigation pertaining to them.

Conclusion
The path a lawsuit takes from the filing of the complaint through its
establishment in court is influenced by a variety of circumstances. All of these
conditions are laid forth in the CPC of 1908 in a structured manner. Such
procedural procedures highlight the CPC's exclusivity, and as a result, delays
are brought on when a civil suit is instituted and when a ruling is passed.

The CPC, 1908, contains a provision under Section 89 that allows for the
settlement of some disputes outside of court by conciliation, arbitration,
judicial settlement, including settlement through Lok Adalat, and mediation,
Sneha Chavan
B-86
indicating that the legislators were aware of this. Additionally, Order XXXVII
has a provision for summary proceedings, which offer prompt and effective
remedies.

JOINDER OF PARTIES TO A CIVIL SUIT

Joinder of parties means to add all persons concerned in a particular dispute to
the suit. Parties can be joined at anytime, subjected to the conditions laid
down in the Code. Order 1 Rule 1 of the Code states when a person may be
joined as plaintiff:

“1. Who may be joined as plaintiffs. — All persons may be joined in

one suit as plaintiffs where—

(a) any right to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same act or
transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist in such persons,
whether jointly, severally or in the alternative; and

(b) if such persons brought separate suits, any common question of law or
fact would arise”[1]

The Code clearly provides that, a party may be joined at any time as a plaintiff
provided that they must have right to claim a relief, either rising from the same
act(s) or same transaction(s) based on which the suit was filed. When a
separate suit is filed by the parties, there should exist a common question of
law or fact, for them to be joined as plaintiffs.

The first landmark case which discussed this provision was the case of Haru
Bepari and Ors. vs. Roy Kshitish Bhusan Roy Bahadur and Ors.[2], where it was
held that, “The conditions which rendered the joinder of several plaintiffs
permissible under Order I, Rule 1. C. P. C. do not necessarily imply that there
can be only one cause of action in the suit in which the several plaintiffs join”.

This view was accepted by many other judgments that followed this case. It is
key to note the decision given by the Bombay High Court in the case of
Paikanna Vithoba Mamidwar and Anr. vs. Laxminarayan Sukhdeo Dalya and
Anr.[3], where the Court decreed that, “It is not, therefore, necessary any
more that there must be identity of interest or identity of causes of action.
What is necessary is the involvement of common question of law or fact.”
Sneha Chavan
B-86
Similar provision was provided to the defendants within the Code prescribed in
Order 1 Rule 3, which states that:

“2.. Who may be joined as defendants. — All persons may be

joined in one suit as defendants where—

(a) any right to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same act or
transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist against such
persons, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative; and

(b) if separate suits were brought against such persons, any common
question of law or fact would arise.”

Thus, the condition for joinder of defendant is the same as the conditions laid
down for the joinder plaintiffs. This was provision explained by the Supreme
Court in Bachu Bhai Patel vs. Harihar Behera & Anr.[4], where it seen that:
“This Rule requires all persons to be joined as defendants in a suit against
whom any right to relief exists provided that such right is based on the same
act or transaction or series of acts or transactions against those persons
whether jointly, severally or in the alternative. The additional factor is that if
separate suits were brought against such persons, common questions of law or
fact would arise. The purpose of the Rule is to avoid multiplicity of suits.”

It was further observed in this case that when Order 1 Rule 3 and Order 2 Rule
3 are read together, it signifies that the question of joinder of parties also
includes the joinder of causes of action. The basic principle is that when causes
of action are joined, the parties are also joined, since the cause of action is
raised against the party. Order 2 Rule 3 states:

“3. Joinder of causes of action.—

(1) Save as otherwise provided, a plaintiff may unite in the same suit several
causes of action against the same defendant, or the same defendants jointly;
and any plaintiffs having causes of action in which they are jointly interested
against the same defendant or the same defendants jointly may unite such
causes of action in the same suit.
Sneha Chavan
B-86
(2) Where causes of action are united, the jurisdiction of the Court as regards
the suit shall depend on the amount or value of the aggregate subject-
matters at the date of instituting the suit.”

Thus, in cases where parties are involved in the same transaction or where
they are moving for the same cause of action, they can be joined within the
same suit, either as plaintiffs or defendants. However, this action depends on
the discretion of the Court.

MISJOINDER OF PARTIES
The joinder or incorporation of any person as a party to a suit, opposite to the
provisions of the Code is known to be a misjoinder. Grounds for a court ruling
that there is a misjoinder incorporate that:

• The parties to the suit do not have the same rights to a judgment.
• They have a conflict of interests.
• The situations in each allegation must be unique or contradictory.
• Even to a bit, the defendants are not involved in the same transaction. In
the case of a criminal prosecution, the most usual cause for misjoinder is
the defendants are found to be involved in various claimed crimes or the
charges are based on separate unique transactions.

However, a misjoinder may be a misjoinder of plaintiffs or a misjoinder of the

cause of action.

Misjoinder of Plaintiffs

Where two or more persons may have joined as Plaintiffs in one suit but the
Right to Relied claimed to exist in each plaintiff, does NOT come out of the
same act or same transaction (or series) and if separate suits were brought by
each of the plaintiff, no common question of fact or question of law may have
arisen, there shall be a misjoinder of plaintiff.

Misjoinder of Defendants

In a similar way, where two or more persons may have joined as Defendants in
one suit but the Right to Relied claimed to exist in each defendant, does NOT
come out of the same act or same transaction (or series) and if separate suits
were brought by each of the defendant, no common question of fact or
question of law may have arisen, there shall be a misjoinder of defendant.
Sneha Chavan
B-86
Misjoinder of Cause of Action

This aspect may be coexisting with misjoinder of plaintiffs or misjoinder of

defendants. Hence, the subject may be considered pertaining to the following
heads.

Misjoinder of Plaintiffs and Cause of Action

Where there are two or more plaintiffs in a suit and two or more causes of
action, the plaintiffs shall be interested jointly in all the causes of action. If not,
the case is one of misjoinder of plaintiffs and cause of action.

Misjoinder of Defendants and Cause of Action: Multifariousness

Where there are two or more defendants in a suit and two or more causes of
action, the suit will be bad for misjoinder of defendants and causes of action,
nonetheless, if unique causes of action are joined against different defendants
separately, such a misjoinder is technically called multifariousness or
assortment.

NONJOINDER OF PARTIES TO A CIVIL SUIT

When a necessary party to the suit has not been joined to the suit, it is deemed
to be a case of non-joinder. It is a situation where certain persons are missing
from the suit without whom no effective conclusion can be reached in the
case. The non-joinder of parties can be classified as, nonjoinder of necessary
parties and, nonjoinder of persons who make the court’s job convenient, that
is necessary parties and proper parties respectively.

Nonjoinder of parties cannot be deemed as a ground for dismissing a suit, as

any party missing from the suit can be later joined according to Order 1 Rule 1
or 3, as per the discretion of the court. The absence of necessary parties means
those parties from whom the cause of action against are not included in the
proceedings, due to which the court cannot decree effectively. In such
situations, the court may dismiss the suit but it is not necessary.
Sneha Chavan
B-86
Order 1 Rule 9 states that no suit shall be dismissed in case
nonjoinder:
“9. Misjoinder and nonjoinder. —No suit shall be defeated by reason of the
misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties, and the Court may in every suit deal with
the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the
parties actually before it:

[Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to non-joinder of a necessary

party.]”

Thus, where the non-joined party is merely a proper party and not necessary,
the suit is not eligible to be dismissed, however where the party in question is
absolutely necessary to ensure that justice is delivered effectively, such a case
may be dismissed according to the discretion of the court.

The plea of non-joinder, however, should be raised at the earliest possible

stage. Where such a plea is raised by the defendant at the earliest stage, and
the plaintiff refuses to include the missing party, he cannot later on file to
amend his mistake.

In the case of Mohan Raj v. Surendra Kumar Taparia and Ors.[8], the Supreme
Court stated that, “No doubt the power of amendment is preserved to the
Court and Order 1, Rule 10 enables the Court to strike out parties but the
Court cannot use Order 6, Rule 17 or Order 1, Rule 10 to avoid the
consequences of non-joinder for which a special provision is to be found in the
Act. The Court can order an amendment and even strike out a party who is not
necessary. But when the Act makes a person a necessary party and provides
that the petition shall be dismissed if such a party is not joined, the power of
amendment or to strike out parties cannot be used at all. The Civil Procedure
Code applied subject to the provisions of the Representation of the People Act
and any rules made thereunder. When the Act enjoins the penalty of dismissal
of the petition for non-joinder of a party the provisions of the Civil Procedure
Code cannot be used as curative means to save the Petition.”

In Narendra Singh v. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd.[9], the
benefit of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act was extended to the plaintiff
where the suit was found bad from a non-joinder of parties. Consequently,
non-joinder should not be interpreted too freely; otherwise the parties shall
stand to lose. If a partnership firm against another firm files a suit, all the
partners have to be impleaded as plaintiffs but not their legal representatives.
Sneha Chavan
B-86
Subsequently, in Brij Kishore Sharma v. Ram Singh[10], the Supreme Court,
reversing the decision of the trial court, held that the suit is not maintainable.
During the pendency of the suit, one of the parties died and his legal
representatives were neither notified now were added to the suit. In the
opinion of the court, the legal representatives should have been brought on
record.

Thus, provided the parties not necessary to the suit, the suit cannot be
dismissed merely on the basis of nonjoinder of parties.
Sneha Chavan
B-86
❖ Mesne profits
Introduction
The underlying principle based on which the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 functions is ubi jus
ibi remedium that signifies where there is a right, there is a remedy. The concept of mesne
profits has been developed from this principle because it is the law of nature to provide the
right to compensation where there has been an infringement or breach of a legal right. Before
delving into the concept of mesne profit, it is necessary to discuss the meaning of the terms
“ownership” and “possession”. While the former is an exclusive collective right of a man to
possess, enjoy, transmit, destroy a property owned by him, the latter acts a prima facie
evidence of the former. The right to possess property is protected in the eyes of law until and
unless another individual claim to have a better title on that property. When this claim arises,
the law acts as a shield to protect the original owner of the property thereby ensuring
compensation from the illegal or unlawful possessor. Mesne profits is a mode of such
compensation facilitating remedy to the aggrieved party refraining the wrongful possessor
from enjoying profits derived from such property. This article aims to explain the concept of
mesne profits governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Mesne profits under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Section 2(12) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 defines the term “mesne profits”. The Delhi
High Court in the notable case of Phiraya Lal Alias Piara Lal vs Jia Rani And Anr (1973)
interpreted the meaning of the term “mesne profit” by observing that when a party claims
damages to recover the loss resulted from wrongful occupation of immovable property by a
trespasser that originally belonged to the party then such damages will be known as mesne
profits. The definition provided by Section 2(12) includes the exception of mesne profits
which is the profits obtained from the improvements made by the wrongful possessor in the
property will not fall under the ambit of mesne profits. The three significant takeaways from
Section 2(12) of the Code have been laid down hereunder;

1. It is to note that the definition has attached importance to due diligence for
obtaining mesne profits.
2. Mesne profits can only be awarded if the property in concern was unlawfully
occupied thereby depriving the original owner of his rights.
3. Interest is a fundamental part of mesne profits under Section 2(12).
Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 lays down the provision for the passing
of the decree by a competent civil court where there exists a suit for recovery of immovable
property possession, rent, or mesne profits. Put simply, a civil court while presenting the
rights of the parties involved in a suit concerning mesne profits, will rely on Rule 12 of Order
XX.
Sneha Chavan
B-86
Illustration 1:
A is in wrongful possession of B’s house. B has rented some part of this house to some
subtenants. Thus depriving A, B is receiving profits from such property. Such profits are known
as ‘Mesne Profits’. Hence A has right to claim for the profits which have been received by B
from the unlawful possession of the property, together with interest on such profits.

Objects of Mesne profits:

The right to possession is a sacred right guaranteed to all law-abiding citizens. We have to
understand that in this case the rightful owner is deprived of his possession and at the same
time he is deprived of the income he can obtain from such possession. The fundamental
object of passing Mesne Profit Is to compensate the actual owner of the property for all the
loss he has suffered. Thus the mesne profits are compensation paid to the real owner.

Mesne Profits- against whom means profits can be ordered?

Generally, Court can award Mesne Profits against the following persons:

• Tenants in a suit for recovery of possession. (Anderson wright v. Amar Nath Roy, AIR
2005 SC 2457)
• Persons against whom a decree for possession of the immovable property was
passed. (Gopal Krishna Pillai v. Meenakshi Ayal, AIR 1967 SC 155)
• Trespass (Sita Ram Lakshmanji v. Dipnarain Mandal, AIR 1977 SC 1870)
• Mortgagors in possession of mortgaged property against whom a decree for
foreclosure was passed. (Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Santhosh Kumari, AIR 2008 SC 171)
• Mortgagors in possession of the property after a decree for redemption was
passed. (Prabhakaran v. M. Azhagiri Pillai, AIR 2006 SC 1567).

Conditions for Claiming Mesne Profits:

1. There should be a wrongful or unauthorized possession of a property
2. A person possessing the property is getting some profit out of the property or can
obtain profit from such property with ordinary diligence.

Wrongful possession of the defendant is the essence of a claim for mesne profits and very
foundation of the defendant’s liability therof.

What does Mesne Profit Include?

Mesne profit includes theprofits received by him or might have been received by him with
ordinary diligence; and the interest on such profits. The rate of interest payable is not fixed
and it depends upon the discretion of the court subject to the limitation that it may not
exceed 6% per annum. The determination of the amount rests entirely at the discretion of
the court and it is difficult to lay down fixed principles which can be applied in every case.
Sneha Chavan
B-86
In Mahant Narayana Dossjee Varu vs The Board of Trustees, Tirupati Devasthanam, AIR
1959 AP 64 case, the Court held that under the express terms of the definition, mesne profits
are profits received by a person in wrongful possession and they are made up of two items

• The profits received by him or might have been received by him with ordinary
diligence; and
• The interest on such profits.

Mesne Profits Includes Interest on Such Profit:

• Mense profits includes interest on such profits and interest shall be allowed when
computing the mesne profits.

• In Mahant Narayana Dasjee Varu v. Tirupathi Devasthanam, AIR 1965 SC 1231 case,
the Court observed that the Code of Civil Procedure 1882, for the first time, included
interest in the definition of mesne profits. It was rightly done because interest is an
integral part of mense profits and has therefore, to be allowed while computing items.

Deductions from Mesne Profits:

The Court must allow the following deductions from the gross profit of the defendant in
possession of the property:-

1. The charge for collecting rent, etc.

2. The costs of cultivating and reaping the crops, and
3. Public charges made from the preservation of the property, e.g., Government
revenue.

In Dakshina v. Saroda, ILR (1894) 21 Cal 142 (PC) case, the Court held that while awarding
mesne profits, the Court may allow deductions to be made from the gross profits of the
defendant in wrongful possession of the property, such as land revenue, rent, cesses, cost of
cultivation and reaping, the charges incurred for collection of rent, etc. In other words, mense
profits should be net profits.

Types of Cases in which Question of Rights of Profit Arises:

1. Suit for ejection or recovery of possession of immovable property from a person in
possession without title, together with a claim for past or past and future mesne prof
2. A suit for possession by one or more tenants in common against others with a claim
for account of past or past and future profits.
3. Suits for possession by number of Joint Hindu Family with a claim for an account from
the manager.

Principals to be Applied to Award Mesne Profits:

The Court must apply the following settled principles to award mesne profits:-
Sneha Chavan
B-86
1. the profit to be taken into account is that made by a person in wrongful possession;
2. the aim should be restoration of status before dispossession of the Decree-holder;
3. the use to which the decree-holder may have put the property if he himself was in
possession is relevant only as evidence of what the defendant might with reasonable
diligence have received.

Provisions in the Limitation Act:

The defendant is liable for all mesne profits received by him or which he might with ordinary
diligence have received during the 3 years before suit and not before Section 109 of the
limitation Act.

Conclusion:
Mesne profits are profits to which a person is entitled but from, which he has been kept out
by the defendant. A claim for mesne profits is usually joined with the action for recovery of
the possession of the land. The relevant provision of law concerned with mesne profits are a)
Section 2(12) of C.P.C. and b) Order 2, Rule 4, and order 20 Rule 12 of C.P.C. The fundamental
object of passing Mesne Profit Is to compensate the actual owner of the property for all the
losses he has suffered. Mesne profit includes the profits received by him or might have been
received by him with ordinary diligence, and the interest on such profits. The criteria for
calculation of mesne profits is not what the owner loses by reason of deprivation from
possession but what the trespasser received or might have received with ordinary diligence.
Mesne profits are in the nature of damages and the right to sue for mesne profit is the right
to sue for damages. Such a right cannot be attached and sold in execution of a decree against
the person entitled to the decree under section 60.
Sneha Chavan
B-86

ORDER XXII – Death, Marriage and Insolvency of

Parties

Introduction
Death, marriage and insolvency of parties, these are three different concepts. These are
mentioned and discussed under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. What happens in cases of
death, marriage and insolvency of parties all this is discussed under their relevant headers.
There are different provisions for each of these three cases. One general rule in cases of death
says that the suit shall not be gone with the death of any one party. In a similar way in this
article, all the provisions are discussed according to the Code of Civil Procedure and relevant
case laws are cited.

Death
If one of the parties met with demise, what will it mean in legal terms to the civil proceedings
of the court? This is discussed under Order XXII of CPC. The following are the different
pathways available to the court corresponding to the different situations –

Rule 1 & 2
“No abatement by party’s death if the right to sue survives”.[2] This means if one of the
parties dies but the right to sue survives then the suit will not be foregone. The dissolution of
the suit will not be abated by the death of one of the parties. The same will happen if there
happens to be more than one plaintiff and defendant and any one of them encounters death,
the co-defendants and co-plaintiffs will carry on the suit only if the right to sue survives. For
example, in a case where there are several plaintiffs and one of the plaintiffs is met with death
but the right to sue survives and the living plaintiffs can carry forward with the suit. The court
will record the death of one of the plaintiffs and carry forward the suit.

Rule 3
If one of two plaintiffs or multiple plaintiffs dies and the right to sue doesn’t survive. Or in
case the sole plaintiff meets with death and the right to sue survives then with the issuance
of an application presented to the court on that matter, the corresponding legal
representative of the respective plaintiff or plaintiffs would be made a party to the suit and
the legal proceedings will continue. This protects the interest of the plaintiff and doesn’t
default their suit on the occurrence of their death. Justice will not be impeded by the death
of the plaintiff/plaintiffs and the court will make sure on serving it.
Sneha Chavan
B-86
“Where within the time limited by law no application is made under sub-rule (1), the suit shall
abate so far as the deceased plaintiff is concerned, and, on the application of the defendant,
the Court may award to him the costs which he may have incurred in defending the suit, to
be recovered from the estate of the deceased plaintiff”.[3] This means that if the application
is not made to the court, regarding the death of the plaintiff/plaintiffs, under the mentioned
time limit as prescribed by the sub-rule (1), the court shall abate and on an application by the
defendant, the court will make sure to award the defendant the costs he might have to pay
to defend the suit, from the estates of the deceased plaintiff. This puts importance on the
application to be presented to the court regarding the death of the plaintiff/plaintiffs within
the prescribed time period. Failure to do so will force to court to dismiss the case in favour of
the defendant.

Rule 4 & 4A
If anyone of two defendants or multiple defendants dies and consequently the right to sue
doesn’t survive. Or if the sole defendant dies and the right to sue survives then the court on
an application made by the legal representative of the defendant/defendants, will result in
the making of the legal representative a party to the suit. And any individual who has been
made a party to the suit shall make any defence which is appropriate to his character as a
legal representative.

This translates that if such a situation arises where one of the defendants or multiple
defendants or sole defendant dies, the court based on an application submitted informing the
death of the defendant/defendants shall make the legal representative a party to the suit.
Which means, the legal representative will now be authorised to defend the suit in place of
the deceased defendant/defendants, in their capacity as the legal representative. Any
defence made by the legal representative now has to make appropriate to his status as a legal
representative. But if within the time limit as prescribed by sub-rule (1), no application is
made or submitted by the respected legal representative of the deceased
defendant/defendants, the court will abate the case against the defendant/defendants.

The court may also relieve the plaintiff from the duty of substituting representative of any
such defendant who has encountered failure in filing a written statement or who has filed
one but have been unsuccessful in appearing and contesting the suit. The court might
pronounce against the defendant notwithstanding the death of such defendant and
judgement would be passed as if the deceased defendant were alive. Though there happens
to be a provision in this case, as if the plaintiff was unaware of the death of defendant and it
was that reason which resulted in his failure to provide an application for substitution of the
legal representative of the defendant in the specified time period as dictated by the Limitation
Act, 1963 (Section 36 of the Act), then the suit as a consequence will be abated. And if the
plaintiff does provide an application but after the time period has expired as stated by the
Limitation Act, 1963, the admission of that application has to justified under Section 5 of that
Act on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to apply in the stated time due to ignorance and
provide a reason for so done. If the court finds it reasonable then only the abatement of the
case can be avoided.

In the case where the deceased defendant had no legal representative, the court on the
application of any one of the parties may continue the proceedings without any
Sneha Chavan
B-86
representative of the deceased’s estates or may by order may appoint Administrator-General
or any other officer of the court or any other individual, as the court may seem fit to represent
the estates of the deceased person for the purpose of the suit. Any judgment so forth passed
by the court will bind the estates of the deceased individual in the very same way as it would
have if he had been alive. Before applying this rule by the court, it would need to give notice
of application to any individuals having an interest in the estates of the deceased defendant.
And determine that the person appointed by the court as being the legal representative of
the so deceased defendant has no interest whatsoever adverse to that of the deceased
defendant.

Rule 5
When the question of ascertaining the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or
defendant arises before the court, then such a question will be determined by the court itself.
If the question arises before an Appellate Court, it will ask the subordinate court to submit
any records regarding the matter, found during the trial (if any). Then based on them, the
court shall find the answer to the question.

Rule 6
This rule makes the view of the court clear and transparent regarding the death of any party
to the suits. It says that death of any party to the suit will not in any way result in abatement
of the judgement by the court and the suit will be treated and the judgement will be passed
in the same way as it would have been if the deceased party were to be alive.

Marriage
A marriage of a party does not have any substantial effect on the suit but there is an exception
to it. A case or a situation in which a decree has been executed against a female who is
married, the decree shall be executed against her only. It has been mentioned under Rule 7
of Order XXII of CPC that a decree which is in favour or against a wife, where the husband is
legally entitled to the subject matter of the decree or if he is liable for the debt of his wife may,
with the explicit permission of the court, it should be executed by or against him.

Insolvency of party
Insolvency of the party is defined and discussed under Rule XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908. Rule 8 of Order XXII says:

• Where a plaintiff becomes insolvent and a receiver or assignee may want to

maintain the suit for the benefit of the creditors of the plaintiff, the suit should not
abate except in cases where the assignee or the receiver declines to continue the
suit, or in certain cases in which the court itself directs the assignee or receiver to
pay the security for costs and the assignee or receiver declines to neglects to pay
the same.
Sneha Chavan
B-86
• Where the receiver or the assignee wishes to proceed with the suit or fails to pay
the security for the costs within the time limit, the defendant then may make an
application to the court and may claim in that for dismissal of the suit.
• Further, the court can order that costs be paid to the defendant and the same
should be deemed to be a debt against the estate of the plaintiff.
• This rule is not at all applicable to the insolvency of the defendant. In these type of
cases, the court may put a stay on the proceedings or suit against such defendant.
• Rule 9 of the same Order says that where a suit is abated, the receiver or assignee
in cases where the plaintiff becomes insolvent he or she may make application to
the court to set aside the abatement,
• The receiver or assignee will have to show that there was reasonable cause for not
continuing with the suit and if the court is satisfied with the same then it may pass
an order in this regard.
• The application to the court should be filed within the time limit as prescribed
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Conclusion
During the period of the absence of coded, recorder laws, these matters were left completely
to the discretion of the court. This often resulted in diverse judgments making precedents
more confusing for the judges as well as the public to comprehend. From the common law
system, now thankfully we have Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which helps the judges with
laid down laws regarding the handling of these issues.

Death of a party now will not raise a thousand complications in carrying out the suit neither
will the marriage of the party. Insolvency which would have meant a huge hurdle to pass for
the courts in case of the proceedings will now be marginalised and the answer to “Who will
pay it?” made easy. To conclude, we can say these cumbersome issues are no more
cumbersome and their answers are all codified and clear. To know the consequences, one
only need to look for the solutions provided by the legislation.
Sneha Chavan
B-86
❖ SUBORDINATION OF COURTS
Synopsis
1 SUBORDINATION OF COURTS-SECTION-3 OF CPC
2 Section:
3 Leading Case:
4 Example:
5 Conclusion:

SUBORDINATION OF COURTS-SECTION-3 OF CPC

In the legal system, the concept of subordination of courts refers to the hierarchy of courts
and their jurisdictional powers. The subordination of courts is important because it helps to
ensure that legal decisions are made in a consistent and orderly manner. In this article, we
will explore the subordination of courts with a focus on the relevant sections and leading
cases in the legal system, along with examples.

Section:
The subordination of courts is established by law, and the relevant sections are included in
the statutes. In India, the Constitution of India and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)
provide for the subordination of courts.

Under the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court is the highest court in the country, and it
has the power of judicial review. The High Courts are subordinate to the Supreme Court, and
they have jurisdiction over the state or union territory in which they are located. The District
Courts are subordinate to the High Courts, and they have jurisdiction over a specific district
or region.

Section 115 of the CPC provides for the revisional powers of the High Court. Under this
section, the High Court can call for the record of any case that is pending before a subordinate
court and may make such orders as it thinks fit. This section empowers the High Court to
exercise revisional jurisdiction over the subordinate courts.
Sneha Chavan
B-86

Types of Courts in India – 7 types of Courts in India

There are various types of Courts in India, each has different powers depending on the tier
and jurisdiction conferred on them. They function according to the set hierarchy of the courts.

Supreme Court
In our country, the Constitution lays down the foundation of an integrated judiciary having
Supreme Court as the highest and final court of appeal. Article 124(1) of the Indian
Constitution states that there shall be a Supreme Court of India constituting of a Chief Justice
of India. Initially, the Supreme Court of India consists of the Chief Justice of India and seven
other judges. The Parliament may, by law, increase or decrease the number of judges of the
Supreme Court when it is required. Now, the Supreme Court has 31 judges including the Chief
Justice of India. In our Constitution, there is a provision of appointment of judges on an ad
hoc basis, whenever it is required. Article 127(1) of the Indian Constitution deals with the
appointment of ad hoc judges. Ad hoc is a Latin term which means “for this”. It means for a
particular purpose. When a quorum of judges is not available to continue or hold the sessions
of Court then ad hoc judges were appointed. The Chief Justice of India can appoint a High
court judge as an ad hoc judge of the Supreme Court after consultation with the Chief Justice
of the concerned High Court.
Sneha Chavan
B-86
The President of India appoints the judges of the Supreme Court and the later can consult
with the Chief Justice of India and also with existing judges of the Supreme Court regarding
such appointment. In case of appointment of the Chief Justice of India, the President shall
consult such judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts.

1. For a person to be eligible as a judge of the Supreme Court, he/she must be a citizen
of India, and should have been for at least five years a judge of a High Court or of
two or more such Courts in succession, or
2. should have been an experience of practicing as an advocate of High Court for the
last ten years or of two or more such courts in succession or
3. should in the opinion of the President be an eminent jurist.
The Supreme Court of India is the highest court of appeal and is vested with various powers,
it exercises original, appellate and advisory jurisdiction.

Powers of the Supreme Court

1. The Supreme Court has the power to punish for contempt of Court under Article
129 of the Indian Constitution.
2. The power of Judicial Review is given to the Supreme Court under Article
32 and Article 136 of the Indian Constitution. They have the power to examine the
legislative enactments and executive orders whether they are consistent with the
provisions of the Constitution or not.
3. Supreme Court is a deciding authority in the election of the President and the Vice
President and enquiring authority in conduct and behaviour of Union Public Service
Commission (UPSC) members.
4. Article 134 of the Indian Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to withdraw
the cases from the High Court.
5. Article 126 of the Indian Constitution states that when the office of the Chief Justice
of India is vacant or when the Chief Justice is by reason of absence or otherwise
unable to perform his duties of the office, then the President of India may appoint
a judge of the Supreme Court to dispense the duties of the office.
6. Article 127 of the Indian Constitution states that the Chief Justice of India can
appoint a judge of High Court as an ad hoc judge in the Supreme Court with the
consent of the President if at any time there is a lack of quorum of judges in the
Supreme Court.
7. Article 128 of the Indian Constitution states that the Chief Justice of India at any
time with the prior consent of the President and the person to be so appointed can
appoint any person who had previously held the office of a judge of the Supreme
Court.
8. The Supreme Court has the power of revisory jurisdiction under Article 137 of the
Indian Constitution through which Supreme Court can review its judgements.
Sneha Chavan
B-86
The Supreme Court is a court of record because its judgements are of evidentiary value and
cannot be questioned in any court.

The Procedure to remove the Chief Justice of India and the judges of the Supreme Court is
given under Article 124(4) of the Constitution of India. The President of India appoints the
judges of the Supreme Court of India, so the power to remove them from their post is vested
upon him. But, according to the Constitution of India, the judiciary is independent of the
legislative and executive organs of the Government. So the judges of the Supreme Court can
be removed only on the basis of proven incapacity or misbehaviour.

High Court
Article 214 of the Indian Constitution states that there shall be a High Court for each State.
The High Court consist of one Chief Justice and other judges. The President appoints the Chief
Justice of the High Court in consultation with the Chief Justice of India while other judges
were appointed by the President in consultation with the Governor of the state, Chief Justice
of the High Court as well as the Chief Justice of India. If in the High Court the office of the
Chief Justice falls vacant due to some reasons then the President can ask any of the Judge to
look after the duties of the Chief Justice.

A person may be appointed as the Chief Justice of the High Court:

1. If the person is an Indian citizen, and

2. If he had held the judicial office in the territory of India, or
3. At least an advocate for 10 years in the High Court or two or more High Courts in
succession, and
4. The age should be below 62 years.
A judge can remain in the office until he has attained the age of 62 years and can also resign
before the retirement by giving a resignation letter to the President. He can also be removed
if the Parliament passed a resolution which is supported by the majority of the total
membership of the House in which the motion of removal has been passed and by a majority
of not less than two-third members of the House present and voting has been presented
before the President, on the grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. He can also vacate
the office of the Court when the President appoints him as the judge of the Supreme Court.

Powers of the High Court

1. Under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, a person can directly file a petition in
the High Court in case of infringement of the Fundamental Rights.
2. Election-related cases or marriage/divorce related cases can be directly filed in the
High Court.
Sneha Chavan
B-86
3. The High Court has the power to give punishment for the contempt of the Court.
4. The High Court has the power to review the cases of the lower Court and give its
judgement accordingly.
5. The High Court exercises original, appellate, supervisory and administrative
jurisdiction.
6. The High Court is a court of record and its judgements are of evidentiary value for
the Subordinate Courts and its decision is binding on the Subordinate Courts and
no Subordinate Courts can challenge them.
Click Above

Civil Courts Meaning

Civil courts deal with the cases or offences that are committed against a private individual
and not against the State unlike in criminal cases where the offence is committed against the
State. Civil wrongs include tort, breach of contract etc. In India, the hierarchy of Civil Courts
is based on the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction of the courts. Civil Courts can deal with
the cases which have been committed within its territory and also which is within the
pecuniary limits of the court.

The Supreme Court is the highest court of appeal for entertaining civil cases and these cases
can not be filed directly in the Supreme Court, the appeal can be filed against the order of the
High Court but in case of infringement of the fundamental rights one can directly approach
to the Supreme Court.The appeal against the order of the District Court can be filed in the
High Court and the cases above the value of Rs. 20 lakhs can directly be filed in the High Court
of the State. District Court deals with the cases which lie between the value of Rs. 3 lakh to
Rs. 20 lakh. The cases up to Rs. 3 lakhs were entertained by the Civil Judge the junior division
and the original cases were entertained by him. Small Causes Courts are the lowest Court of
appeal in the hierarchy of Civil Courts and it deals with the cases of value below Rs. 3 lakh.
The Civil Courts are governed by the Civil Procedure Code. The Civil Courts can award damages
or compensation to the party whose legal rights have been infringed. Plaintiff and Defendant
are the parties to a civil case.

District Court and Additional District Court

The State Government in India has established the District Courts in every district by
considering the number of cases and population in that district. The District Courts of India
are presided by a district judge and these courts administer justice at a district level. These
courts are under administrative and judicial control of the High Court of the State to which
that district belongs. The District and Sessions Judge is the highest Court in each district. The
Governor after consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court of that State appoints the
judges of the District Court and the eligibility criteria to become a judge of District Court is at
least seven years of practice as an advocate. The District Court is the highest Civil Court in a
district. Civil and Criminal Courts are two types of Courts in every district. Civil Courts exercise
Sneha Chavan
B-86
the power of subject matter jurisdiction, territorial Jurisdiction, pecuniary jurisdiction and
appellate jurisdiction.

Powers of the District Court

1. The District Court hears criminal cases, domestic related cases and civil cases.
2. The District judge in case of criminal cases has the power to give any punishment
including capital punishment.
3. The Chief Judicial Magistrate can deal with the cases which are punishable with
imprisonment for a term up to seven years.
When the District Court exercises its jurisdiction in criminal cases under the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), it is referred as sessions court. The Court is presided by a judge who
is appointed by the High Court of that particular State. Additional Sessions Judges and
Assistant Sessions Judges in this Court can also be appointed by the High Court of that State.
Additional Sessions Judges can be appointed in POCSO cases, electricity cases, NDPS, FTC etc.
The appeal can be filed in the High Court against the decision of the District Court.

Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)

The Court of Civil Judge of Senior Division comes at the middle of the hierarchy on the civil
side. Civil Judge or Senior Division has the authority to try civil cases of any value. There are
many additional courts of Additional Civil Judge(senior division). These additional courts have
the same jurisdiction as exercised by the principal court of Civil Judge or Senior Division. A
Senior Division or Civil Judge exercises pecuniary jurisdiction without any limit.

Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)

The Court of Civil Judge of Junior Division is at the lowest level in deciding civil cases. It has
the power to impose any sentence in accordance with the law and it can provide capital
punishment also. Civil Judge of Junior Division can extend its jurisdiction in all the original
suits and proceedings.

Eligibility to become Civil Judge of Junior Division:

• An applicant must have done LL.B(Bachelor of Laws)/LL.M.(Master of Laws) with

55% from any university which was recognized by the State Government/Central
Government.
• Age limit is 21-35 years and relaxation in age is provided to reserved candidates.
Sneha Chavan
B-86
Court of small causes for metropolitan cities
Under the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, the court of small causes for metropolitan
cities were established in India. This Act empowered the State Government that it can
establish a Court of Small Causes anywhere within its territory. These courts have the
authority to decide small value civil cases only.

Munsiff court or court of sub judge III class

Munsiff court is the lowest court of appeal for civil cases in the district. It has the authority to
try the offence under certain pecuniary limits. Munsiff Magistrate/ Judicial Collector have
control over these courts. The territorial jurisdiction of the District Munsiff Court was
prescribed by the State Government. The judge and presiding officer of the District are
Munsiff Magistrate who keep a charge on all the tax inspectors.

Criminal Court Meaning

Criminal wrong is a wrong against the whole society not only against the victim. Criminal
Courts deal with criminal matters which are considered as a crime against the State.

The Supreme Court exercises appellate jurisdiction through which it has the power to
withdraw cases from the High Court regarding criminal matters. The appeal against the order
of the District Court can be filed in the High Court of the State.

The hierarchy of the Criminal Courts in India is given in Section 6 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 which is given as follows:

1. Session Court
2. Judicial Magistrate of the first class
3. Judicial Magistrate of the second class
4. Executive Magistrate

Session Court
The lowest court of appeal in the hierarchy of Criminal Court is the Court of sessions where
the sessions judge conducted the trial. Section 9 of CrPC empowers the State Government to
establish a Session Court for every sessions division. The High Court appoints the judge of
Session Court. Additional Session Judges and Assistant Session Judges can also be appointed
by the High Court to exercise jurisdiction in a Session Court.
Sneha Chavan
B-86
This Court deals with cases related to theft, murders, dacoity etc. Session Court is empowered
to provide a sentence of death and can impose fines for a criminal offence.

The High Court can appoint the Sessions Judge of one division to be an Additional Sessions
Judge of another division. When the office of the Sessions Judge left vacant due to some
reasons then the High Court has the power to do arrangements for the disposal of any urgent
case. If any case is pending before the Session Court then Additional or Assistant Sessions
Judge shall have jurisdiction to deal with such a case and in a situation where there is no
Additional or Assistant Session Judge then Chief Judicial Magistrate in the sessions division
can deal with such application.

Subordinate Judge Class I

Section 11 of the CrPC provided that the State Government can establish the Court of Judicial
Magistrate of the first class in the district and any number by consulting with the High Court
of the respective State.

It is given in Section 15 of the CrPC that a Judicial Magistrate is subordinate to the Chief
Judicial Magistrate and it is subject to the control of the Sessions Judge.

Section 29 of the CrPC empowered the Judicial Magistrate of First Class that he may impose
a fine not more than ten thousand rupees or may pass a sentence of imprisonment for not
more than three years.

Subordinate Judge Class II

Section 11 of the CrPC empowered the State Government that it can establish the Court of
Judicial Magistrate of the second class in the district and in any number by consulting with
the High Court of the respective State.

Section 29(3) of the CrPC empowered the Judicial Magistrate of Second Class that he may
impose a fine of not more than five thousand rupees or may pass a sentence of imprisonment
for not more than one year or both.

It is incorporated in Schedule I and Schedule II of the Cr.P.C. that the offences which are triable
by either “Any Magistrate” or “Judicial Magistrate of the Second Class” such offences can be
tried by a Judicial Magistrate.

Executive Magistrate
Section 20 of CrPC empowered the State Government to appoint Executive Magistrates in
every metropolitan area and in every district. It has the authority to appoint one of the
Executive Magistrate as the District Magistrate and it can appoint any Executive Magistrate
Sneha Chavan
B-86
as the Additional District Magistrate and such magistrate has the same power as enjoyed by
the District Magistrate under CrPC.

If the office of a District Magistrate left vacant then any officer who is succeeding temporarily
to the executive administration of the district shall exercise the same power as enjoyed by
the District Magistrate under CrPC. The State Government is empowered to give charge of a
sub-division to the Executive Magistrate. The Executive Magistrate who got the charge of a
sub-division shall be called as Sub-divisional Magistrate.

Leading Case:
The leading case on the subordination of courts in India is the case of Satyadhyan Ghosal v.
Deorajin Debi (1960). In this case, the Supreme Court laid down the principle of the hierarchy
of courts and their jurisdictional powers. The court held that the High Courts have the power
to supervise and control the subordinate courts, and the subordinate courts are bound to
follow the decisions of the High Courts.

In this case, the plaintiff had filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant from a certain
property. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the plaintiff filed a revision petition before
the High Court. The High Court allowed the revision petition and remanded the case to the
trial court for fresh consideration. The defendant then filed an appeal before the Supreme
Court, challenging the order of the High Court.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had the power to supervise and control the
subordinate courts, and its decision in the revision petition was binding on the trial court. The
court also held that the order of the High Court was a judicial order, and the defendant could
not challenge it by way of an appeal. The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order
of the High Court.

Example:
To illustrate the subordination of courts, consider the following example:

Suppose that a plaintiff files a suit in a District Court seeking a declaration of his rights over a
certain property. The defendant contests the suit, and the District Court dismisses the suit.
The plaintiff then files an appeal before the High Court, challenging the order of the District
Court.

The High Court has the power to hear the appeal and can either affirm or reverse the order
of the District Court. If the High Court affirms the order of the District Court, the plaintiff can
file a revision petition before the High Court under section 115 of the CPC. The High Court can
then call for the record of the case and may make such orders as it thinks fit.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the subordination of courts is an important principle in the legal system, and it is
established by law. The relevant sections and leading cases provide guidance on the hierarchy of
courts and their jurisdictional powers. Understanding the subordination of courts is important for
individuals who are involved in legal proceedings, as it helps to ensure that legal decisions are made
in a consistent and orderly manner