Objection of Jurisdiction Under CPC: Meaning, Procedure & Landmark Case Laws Explained

---

In civil litigation, the first and most fundamental question is whether the court has the authority to hear the case. This authority is known as jurisdiction. Whenever a party believes that the court lacks the legal power to decide the matter, they can raise what is known as an “opposition of jurisdiction”. The Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) provides a detailed framework for challenging jurisdiction at the earliest stage of the proceedings.

This article discusses the meaning of jurisdiction, types of jurisdiction, how and when an objection can be raised, and what courts have said through landmark judgments.

What Is Jurisdiction?

The term jurisdiction simply means the power of a court to hear, try, and decide a matter. If a court has no jurisdiction, any order passed by it becomes null and void.

Under the CPC, jurisdiction broadly includes the following:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction – power based on geographical limits (Sections 16–20).
2. Pecuniary Jurisdiction – power based on monetary limits (Section 15).
3. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction – power to hear only specific kinds of cases (e.g., family courts, rent courts, consumer forums).

Opposition of jurisdiction arises when a defendant argues that the case has been filed in the wrong court under any of these categories.

Why Is Opposition of Jurisdiction Important?

• It prevents courts from exceeding their legal limits.
• It protects litigants from harassment or inconvenience.
• It ensures that cases are filed in the proper forum.

Most importantly, if a court without jurisdiction passes a judgment, it becomes void ab initio, meaning invalid from the very beginning.

Legal Provisions in CPC Relevant to Opposing Jurisdiction

1. Section 21 – Objections to Jurisdiction

Section 21 CPC states that objections to territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity, preferably before settlement of issues. If not raised in time, the objection is considered waived.

However, this rule does not apply to objections related to subject-matter jurisdiction, because subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred even by consent of parties.

2. Section 9 – Courts to Try All Civil Suits Unless Barred

Section 9 ensures that civil courts have jurisdiction over all civil matters unless expressly or impliedly barred by law. If a suit is filed in a civil court despite a statutory bar (like a tribunal’s exclusive jurisdiction), the defendant can oppose jurisdiction.

3. Order 7 Rule 10 – Return of Plaint

If the court finds that it lacks jurisdiction, it may return the plaint to be presented to the proper court.

4. Order 14 Rule 2 – Court Must Determine Jurisdiction as a Preliminary Issue

When the jurisdiction question goes to the root of the case, the court must decide it as a preliminary issue before proceeding with the trial.

When Should Opposition of Jurisdiction Be Raised?

Courts have consistently held that objections regarding:

• Territorial jurisdiction
• Pecuniary jurisdiction

must be raised before the trial begins. If a party participates in the trial without objecting, they lose the right to challenge later.

But objections related to subject-matter jurisdiction can be raised at any stage, even on appeal or revision.

Landmark Case Laws on Opposition of Jurisdiction

1. Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan (1954)

This is the most important case on jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that:

• A decree passed by a court lacking subject-matter jurisdiction is a nullity.
• Such a decree can be challenged even in execution proceedings.

This case clearly differentiates between curable and incurable defects of jurisdiction.

2. Hira Lal Patni v. Sri Kali Nath (1962)

The Court reiterated that objections to territorial jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest stage. If not done, they are deemed waived.

This case supports the mandatory reading of Section 21 CPC.

3. Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan Rule Extended in Official Trustee v. Sachindra Nath (1969)

The Supreme Court held that parties cannot, by agreement or conduct, vest a court with jurisdiction where the law does not give it.

Thus, subject-matter jurisdiction is non-negotiable.

4. Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd. (2005)

The Supreme Court made a critical observation:

• Suits for immovable property must be filed where the property is located (Section 16 CPC).
• A decree passed by a court lacking territorial jurisdiction under Section 16 is void.

This case strengthened courts’ strict interpretation of property-related jurisdiction.

5. Dhunshi Shah v. Ahmedbhai Karimji (1970)

The Court held that pecuniary jurisdiction errors can be ignored if no injustice has been caused.

This case supports the “no failure of justice” test in Section 21 CPC.

6. Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman (1970)

The Court clarified:

• If jurisdictional error is apparent on the face of the record, the decree is void.
• If not apparent, it must be challenged through proper proceedings, not execution.

Practical Application: How Courts Assess Jurisdiction Opposition

Courts generally check:

1. Whether the objection was raised on time.
2. Whether the defect is curable or incurable.
3. Whether failure of justice has occurred.
4. Whether an exclusive forum (like consumer forum, tribunal, or special court) exists.
5. Whether the cause of action arises within the proposed jurisdiction.

If the objection is valid and timely, courts may:

• Return the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10;
• Dismiss the suit; or
• Transfer the case under Section 24 CPC.

Conclusion

Opposition of jurisdiction is an essential safeguard in civil litigation. The CPC clearly balances the interests of litigants by:

• Allowing objections to be raised when justified,
• Preventing misuse by requiring timely objections, and
• Protecting subject-matter jurisdiction as a strict legal boundary.

The principle is simple: A court can act only within the authority granted by law. If a court lacks jurisdiction, its orders — even if correct on merits — cannot stand. This ensures the integrity of the judicial system and protects the rights of parties.

---

References

1. Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340.
2. Hira Lal Patni v. Sri Kali Nath, AIR 1962 SC 199.
3. Official Trustee v. Sachindra Nath, AIR 1969 SC 823.
4. Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd., (2005) 7 SCC 791.
5. Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman, (1970) 1 SCC 670.
6. Dhunshi Shah v. Ahmedbhai Karimji, AIR 1970 SC 147.
7. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (Sections 9, 15–21; Order 7 Rule 10; Order 14 Rule 2).

#OppositionOfJurisdiction #CPC #CivilProcedureCode #JurisdictionInCivilLaw #IndianCivilLaw #Section21CPC #CivilSuits #LandmarkCaseLaws #LegalBlog #CivilJurisdiction #DrGaneshVisavale