Jurisdiction under Civil Law
By Adv. Sandigdha Mishra
advsandigdha@paydirtprofessionals.com
Jurisdiction:-
The authority given by law to a court to try cases and rule on legal matters within a particular geographic area and/or over certain types of legal cases. It is vital to determine before a lawsuit is filed which court has jurisdiction.
The term is derived from the Latin words juris which means Law and dicere, which means to speak.
Such a power is usually regulated by the procedural code applicable to that Court. In India, the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 regulates all procedural aspects of Civil Courts, while Tribunals may be governed by the statute under which they are established, in addition to the code.
· Suits over and above Rs. 2,00,00,000/- lie before High Courts.
It is very important to note that the amount of pecuniary jurisdiction is different for all High Courts. This limit is decided by respective High Court Rules.
In many states High court has no pecuniary jurisdiction. All civil suits go before District Courts, and only appeal lies before High Court
Jurisdiction of The Civil Courts Under The Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908
The principle of jurisdiction is within Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.This provision gives to the Civil Courts inherent jurisdiction to adjudicate cases of civil nature and pass consequent orders as necessary.
Therefore, a court must take cognizance of any matter that is civil in nature, hear the parties and pass consequent orders as it deems fit. It is mandatory for the court to adjudicate upon cases brought before it, unless barred by Statute, due to the use of the word “shall” in Section 9.
The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Pankaj Bhargav v. Mahendra Nath[8] held that a court has Jurisdiction over a Subject Matter if it has the authority to hear and decide all such cases in which a controversy regarding that Subject Matter arises.
However, Section 9 also states that a court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a matter if it is expressly or impliedly barred under statute. There are four aspects to this,
However, Section 9 also states that a court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a matter if it is expressly or impliedly barred under statute. There are four aspects to this,
*subject-matter jurisdiction,
*pecuniary jurisdiction ,
*territorial jurisdiction and
*original and appellate jurisdictions.
For example, a civil court cannot take cognizance of a criminal matter, as this is implied under Section 9 of the code, which gives civil courts the power to adjudicate upon civil matters only.
This is an example of Jurisdiction over Subject Matter. On the other hand, an example of an express bar to Jurisdiction would be Section 6 of the code, which clearly states that a civil court is barred from adjudicating upon matters outside its Pecuniary Jurisdiction
At present Pecuniary jurisdiction limit of Delhi:-
· Suits amounting to Rs.1 - Rs.2,00, 00,000 lie before district courts.
· Suits over and above Rs. 2,00,00,000/- lie before High Courts.
No such Pecuniary jurisdiction limit for Haryana courts i.e unlimited pecuniary limit.
It is very important to note that the amount of pecuniary jurisdiction is different for all High Courts. This limit is decided by respective High Court Rules.
In many states High court has no pecuniary jurisdiction. All civil suits go before District Courts, and only appeal lies before High Court
Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure gives inherent powers to civil courts to adjudicate upon all disputes of civil nature, but this is subject to limitations, both express and implied, within the Code itself, along with other statutes as well. The Code provides for the exercise of Equitable Jurisdiction as well, but does not lay down the scope of such a power.
The Supreme Court of India is of the view that Civil Courts and even Tribunals must be very careful in exercising powers of equity, and that Jurisdiction in Law always overrides Equitable Jurisdiction. This greatly limits the powers of the courts.
The Supreme Court of India is of the view that Civil Courts and even Tribunals must be very careful in exercising powers of equity, and that Jurisdiction in Law always overrides Equitable Jurisdiction. This greatly limits the powers of the courts.
Even though Section 151 of the Code exists to overcome any possible inadequacies in the law, such scenarios are few and far between, especially in this day and age when the law has developed to such an extent that remedies to almost all wrongs are contained within the provisions of statutes themselves.
Various provisions of the Code do demand that Civil Courts apply the principles of Equity in certain cases, such as deciding the amount of interest to be paid as part of a remedy under Section 34 of the Code.
Various provisions of the Code do demand that Civil Courts apply the principles of Equity in certain cases, such as deciding the amount of interest to be paid as part of a remedy under Section 34 of the Code.
Even though the Code expressly provides for application of principles of Equity in such cases, courts still have to adhere to the provisions of the existing law and cannot pass any orders that violate any statutory provisions.
"Thus, Equity must always yield to Law, and Law is Supreme."
Comments
Post a Comment