Introduction: Jurisdiction (from the Latin ius, iuris meaning "law" and dicere meaning "to speak") is the practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or to a politi cal leader to deal with and make pronouncements pronouncemen ts on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility !he term is also used to denote the geographical area or subjectmatter to which such responsibility authority applies Jurisdiction draws its substance from public international law, conflict of laws, constitutional law and the powers of the e#ecuti$e and legislati$e branches of go$ernment to allocate r esources to best ser$e the needs of its nati$e society !he %istrict &ourt or 'dditional %istrict court e#ercises jurisdiction both on original and appellate side in ci$il and criminal matters arising in the %istrict !he territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction in ci$il matters is usually set in concerned state enactments on the subject of ci$il courts n the criminal side jurisdiction is almost e#clusi$ely deri$ed from code of criminal procedure !his code sets the ma#imum sentence which a district court may award which currently is capital punishment !he court e#ercises appellate jurisdiction o$er all subordinate courts in the district on both ci$il and criminal matters !hese subordinate courts usually consist of a Junior &i$il Judge court, rincipal Junior ci$il Judge court, *enior ci$il judge court (often called sub court)in the order of ascendancy on the ci$il side and the Judicial +agistrate &ourt of I Ind &lass, Judicial +agistrate &ourt of Ist class, &hief Judicial +agistrate &ourt in the order of ascendancy on the criminal side &ertain matters on criminal or ci$il side cannot be tried by a court inferior in jurisdiction j urisdiction to a district court if the particular enactment makes a pro$ision to the effect !his gi$es the %istrict &ourt original jurisdiction in such matters 'ppeals from the district courts lie to the igh court of the concerned state
Jurisdiction Of Civil Courts In India Jurisdiction of ci$il courts can be di$ided on two basis - ecuniary.+onetary, / !erritorial . 'rea 0ise &lassification
Pecuniary/Monetary Jurisdiction ecuniary jurisdiction of the court di$ides the court on a $ertical basis 't present the pecuniary jurisdiction of the %elhi courts is as follows: a) *uits amounting to 1s- 1s/2, 22,222 lie before district courts b) *uits o$er and abo$e 1s /2,22,222. lie before igh &ourts It is $ery important to note that the amount of pecuniary jurisdiction is different for all igh &ourts !his limit is decided by respecti$e igh &ourt 1ules In many states igh court has no pecuniary jurisdiction 'll ci$il suits go before %istrict &ourts, and only appeal lies before igh &ourt
Territorial Jurisdiction: !erritorial Jurisdiction di$ides the courts on a hori3ontal basis %istrict &ourts: 4or e#ample in %elhi, there are three %istrict le$el courts, $i3 atiala ouse, !is a3ari and 5arakardooma 'll these courts ha$e nearly same powers owe$er, being on a same hori3ontal line, these courts are di$ided territory wise, ie area wise 'gain for e#ample, cases pertaining to *outh %elhi, 6ew %elhi and 0est %elhi will lie before atiala ouse, and 6orth %elhi cases will lie before !is a3ari, and cases pertaining to 7ast %elhi will lie before 5arakardooma igh &ourt: *imilarly igh &ourt of two different states, say %elhi, and unjab may ha$e similar powers in their respecti$e states, but are di$ided on the basis of area &ases pertaining to %elhi will lie before %elhi igh court and cases pertaining to unjab will lie before unjab igh &ourt
How Is Territory Decided?: !erritory of a court is decided after taking into account se$eral factors !hey are:
a) In &ase f Immo$able roperty: If the suit is with regard to reco$ery, rent, partition, sale, redemption, determination of right of immo$able property, it shall be instituted in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situated Immo$able roperty *ituated 0ithin !he Jurisdiction of %ifferent &ourts: In such a case the suit may be instituted in any court within the local li mits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situated
b) In &ase f %ispute 8etween !wo r +ore ersons 0ith 1espect !o +o$able roperty, 8usiness r 'ny ther 0rong %one: 0here a wrong has been caused to a person, or any damage has been caused to a mo$able property, then the suit may be instituted either, 9 In the place, where wrong or damage has been caused, or 9 In the place, where defendant (the person who caused the loss) resides 0here there is a dispute in business, agreement or any other kind of ci$il dispute, e#cept matrimonial matter, then the suit may be instituted either, 9 In a place, where the defendant resides, or carries on business, or 9 In a place, where the cause of action has arisen, ie where the dispute or wrong took place
c) In &ase f +atrimonial %ispute: 0here a dispute arises between usband and wife inregard to their marital life then the case may be filed either: 9 In the place where marriage was solemni3ed, or 9 In the place, where opposite party is residing, or 9 In the place, where usband and 0ife last resided together, or 9 In the place, where person filing the case is r esiding, pro$ided that pposite party has not been heard of as ali$e for the last *e$en years, or pposite party resides outside the jurisdiction of indu +arriage 'ct -;<< &ourts may also ha$e jurisdiction that is e#clusi$e, or concurrent (shared) 0here a court has e#clusi$e jurisdiction o$er a territory or a subject matter, it is the only court that is authori3ed to address that matter 0here a court has concurrent or shared jurisdiction, more than one court can adjudicate the matter
International nd Munici!al Jurisdiction !he fact that international organi3ations, courts and tribunals ha$e been created raises the difficult =uestion of how to coordinate their acti$ities with those of national courts If the two sets of bodies do not ha$e concurrent jurisdiction but, as in the case of the International &riminal &ourt ( I&&), the relationship is e#pressly based on the principle of complementarily, ie the international court is subsidiary or complementary to national courts, the difficulty is a$oided 8ut if the jurisdiction claimed is concurrent, or as in the case of International &riminal !ribunal for the former >ugosla$ia (I&!>), the international tribunal is to pre$ail o$er national courts, the problems are more difficult to resol$e politically !he idea of uni$ersal jurisdiction is fundamental to the operation of global organi3ations such as the ?nited 6ations and the International &ourt of Justice (I&J), which jointly assert the benefit of maintaining legal entities with jurisdiction o$er a wide range of matters of significance to states (the I&J should not be confused with the I&& and this $ersion of "uni$ersal jurisdiction" is not the same as that enacted in the 0ar &rimes Law (8elgium) which is an assertion of e#traterritorial jurisdiction that will fail to gain implementation in any other state under the standard pro$isions of public policy) ?nder 'rticle @A *tatute of the I&J only states may be parties in cases before the &ourt and, under 'rticle @B, the jurisdiction comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specially pro$ided for in the &harter of the ?nited 6ations or in treaties and con$entions in force 8ut, to in$oke the jurisdiction in any gi$en case, all the parties ha$e to accept the prospecti$e judgment as binding !his reduces the risk of wasting the &ourtCs time %espite the safeguards built into the constitutions of most of these organi3ations, courts and tribunals, the concept of uni$ersal jurisdiction is contro$ersial among those states which prefer unilateral to multilateral solutions through the use of e#ecuti$e or military authority, sometimes described as realpolitikbased diplomacy
Jurisdiction Of Civil Court "nder Civil Procedure Code *ection ; of && deals with the jurisdiction of ci$il courts in India It says that the courts shall (subject to the pro$isions herein contained) ha$e jurisdiction to try all suits of a ci$il nature e#cepting suits of which their cogni3ance is either e#pressly or impliedly barred
#$!lanation I a suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit or a ci$il nature, notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of =uestions as to religious rites or ceremonies #$!lanation II for the purpose of this section, it is immaterial whether or not any fees are attached to the office referred to in e#planation I or whether or not such office is attached to a particular place Conditions ' ci$il court has jurisdiction to try a suit if two conditions are fulfilled: a) !he suit must be of a ci$il nature and b) !he cogni3ance of such a suit should not ha$e been e#pressly or impliedly barred
a) suit of civil nature i meaning: in order that a ci$il court may ha$e jurisdiction to try a suit, the first condition which must be satisfied is that the suit must be of a ci$il natureD !he word Eci$ilF has not been defined in the code 8ut according to the dictionary meaning, it pertains to pri$ate rights and remedies of a citi3en as distinguished from criminal, political, etc the word EnatureFhas been defined as Ethe fundamental =ualities of a person or thing identity or issential character sort, kind, characterFF It is thus wider in content !he e#pression Eci$il natureF is wider than the e#pression Eci$il proceedingsF !hus, a suit is of a ci$il is of a nature if the principal =uestion therein relates to the determination of a ci$il right and enforcement thereof It is not the status of the parties to the suit, but the subject matter of it which determines whether or not the suit is of a ci$il nature ii 6ature and scope the e#pression Gsuit of a ci$il natureH will co$er pri$ate r ights and obligations of a citi3en olitical and religious =uestions are not co$ered by that e#pression ' suit in which the principal =uestion relates to caste or religion is not a suit of a ci$il nature 8ut if the principal =uestion in a suit is of a ci$il nature (the right to property or to an office) and the adjudication incidentally in$ol$es the determination relating to a caste =uestion or to religious rights and ceremonies, it does not cease to be a suit of a ci$il nature and the jurisdiction of a ci$il court is not barred !he court has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon those =uestions also in order to decide the principal =uestion which is of a ci$il nature 7#planation II has been added by the amendment act of -;B before this e#planation, there was a di$ergence of judicial opinion as to whether a suit relating to a religious office to which no fees or emoluments were attached can be said to be a suit of a ci$il nature 8ut the legal position has now been clarified by e#planation II which specifically pro$ides that a suit relating to a religious office is maintainable whether or not it carries any fees or whether or not it is attached to a particular place
iii% %octrine e#plained e#plaining the concept of jurisdiction of ci$il courts under section ;, in +' +etropolitan $ ++ +arthoma, the supreme court stated: Gthe e#pensi$e nature of the section is demonstrated by use of phraseology both positi$e and negati$e !he earlier part opens the door widely and latter debars entry to only those which are e#pressly or impliedly barred !he two e#planations, one e#isting from inception and later added in -;B, bring out clearly the legislati$e intention of e#tending operation of the section to religious matters where right to property or office is in$ol$ed irrespecti$e of whether any fee is attached to the office or not !he language used is simple but e#plicit and clear It is structured on the basic of a ci$ili3ed jurisprudence that absence of machinery for enforcement of right renders it nugatory !he heading which is normally a key to the section brings out une=ui$ocally that all ci$il suits are cogni3able unless bared 0hat is meant by it is e#plained further by widening the ambit of the section by use of the word EshallF and the e#pression Eall suits of a ci$il nature unless e#pressly or impliedly barredF 7ach word and e#pression casts an obligation on the court to e#ercise jurisdiction for enforcement of rights !he word shall makes it mandatory 6o court can refuse to entertain a suit if it is of the description mentioned in the section !hat is amplified by the use of the e#pression E all suits of ci$il natureF !he word ci$il according to the dictionary means, relating to the citi3en as an indi$idual ci$il rightsF In 8lackFs legal dictionary it is defined as, E relating to pro$ide rights and remedies sought by ci$il actions as contrasted with criminal proceedingsF In law it is understood as an antonym of criminal istorically the two broad classifications were ci$il and criminal 1e$enue, ta# and company etc were added to it later 8ut they too pertain to the larger family of ci$il !here is thus no doubt about the width of the word ci$il Its width has been stretched further by using the word nature along with it !hat is e$en those suits are cogni3able which are not only ci$il but are e$en of ci$il nature
!he word EnatureF has defined as Ethe fundamental =ualities of a person or thing identity or essential character, sortkindcharachterF It is thus wider in content !he word Eci$il natureF is wider that the word Eci$il proceedingF !he section would, therefore, be a$ailable in e$ery case where the dispute was of the characteristics of affecting oneFs rights which are not only ci$il but of ci$il natureH
iv% !est: a suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of a ci$il nature, notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of a =uestion as to religious rites or ceremonies $ *uits of ci$il nature: illustrations the following are suits of a ci$il nature - suits relating to rights to property / suits relating to rights of worship @ suits relating to taking out of religious procession A suits relating to right to share in offerings < suits for damages for ci$il wrongs B suits for specific performance of contracts or for damages for breach of contracts suits for specific relief Fs suits for restitution of conjugal rights ; suits for dissolution of marriages -2 suits for rent -- suits for or on account -/ suits for rights of franchise -@ suits for rights to hereditary offices -A suits for rights to >ajman$ritis -< suits against wrongful dismissal from ser$ice and for salaries, etc $i suits not of ci$il nature illustrations the following are not suits of a ci$il nature: - suits in$ol$ing principally caste =uestions / suits in$ol$ing purely religious rites or ceremonies @ suits for upholding mere dignity or honor A suits for reco$ery of $oluntary payments or offerings < suits against e#pulsions from caste, etc
b% co&ni'ance not barred as stated abo$e, a litigant ha$ing a grie$ance of a ci$il nature has a right to institute a ci$il suit unless its cogni3ance is barred, either e#pressly or impliedly i *uits e#pressly barred a suit is said to be Ee#pressly barred F when it is barred by any enactment for the time being in force It is open to a competent legislature to bar jurisdiction of ci$il courts with respect to a particular class of suits of a ci$il nature, pro$ided that, in doing so, it keeps itself within the field of legislation conferred on it and does not contra$ene any pro$ision of the constitution 8ut e$ery presumption should be made in fa$or of the jurisdiction of a ci$il court and the pro$ision of e#clusion of jurisdiction of a court must be strictl y construed If there is any doubt about the ousting of jurisdiction of a ci$il court, the court will lean to an interpretation which would maintain the jurisdiction !hus, matters falling within the e#clusi$e jurisdiction of re$enue courts or under the code of criminal procedure or matters dealt with by special tribunals under the rele$ant statutes, eg by industrial tribunal, income ta# tribunal, re$enue tribunal, electronic tribunal, rent tribunal,
cooperati$e tribunal, motor accident claims tribunal, etc or by domestic tribunals, eg 8ar &ouncil, +edical &ouncil, uni$ersity, club etc are e#pressly barred from the cogni3ance of a ci$il court 8ut if the remedy pro$ided by a statute is not ade=uate and all =uestions cannot be decided by a special tribunal, the jurisdiction of a ci$il court is not barred *imilarly, when a court of limited jurisdiction prima facie and incidentally states something, the jurisdiction of a ci$il court to finally decide the time is not ousted ii *uits impliedly barred a suit is said to be impliedly barred when it is barred by general principles of law 0here a specific remedy is gi$en by a statute, it thereby depri$es the person who insists upon a remedy of any other form than that gi$en by the statute 0here an act creates an obligation and enforces its performance in a specified manner, that performance cannot be enforced in any other manner *imilarly, certain suits, though of a ci$il nature, are barred from thee cogni3ance of a ci$il court on the ground of public policy Gthe principle underlying is that a court ought not to countenance matters which are injurious to and against the public wealH !hus, no suit shall lie for reco$ery of costs incurred in criminal prosecution or for enforcement of a right upon a contract hit by section /@ of the Indian &ontract 'ct, -/ or against any judge for acts done in the course of his duties Likewise, political =uestions belong to the domain of public administrati$e law and are outside the jurisdiction of ci$il courts ' ci$il court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon disputes of a political nature
(o *ay decide? It is well settled that a ci$il court has inherited power to decide its own j urisdiction
Presu*!tion as to +urisdiction In dealing with the =uestion whether a ci$il courtFs jurisdiction to entertain a suit is barred or not, it is necessary to bear in mind that e$ery presumption should be made in fa$or of the j urisdiction of a ci$il court !he e#clusion of jurisdiction of a ci$il court to entertain ci$il causes should not be readily inferred unless the rele$ant statute contains an e#press pro$ision to that effect, or leads to a necessary and ine$itable implication of the nature
,urden of !roof It is well settled that it is for the party who seeks to oust the jurisdiction of a ci$il court to establish it It is e=ually well settled that a statute ousting the jurisdiction of a ci$il court must be strictly construed 0here such a contention is raised, it has to be determined in the light of the words used in the statute, the scheme of the rele$ant pro$isions and the object and purpose of the enactment In the case of a doubt as to jurisdiction, the court should lean towards the assumption of jurisdiction ' ci$il court has inherent power to decide the =uestion of its own jurisdiction although as a result of such in=uiry it may turn out that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit
#$clusion of +urisdiction: li*itations ' litigation ha$ing a grie$ance of a ci$il nature has, independent of any statute, a right to institute a suit in a ci$il court unless its cogni3ance is either e#pressly or impliedly barred !he e#clusion of the jurisdiction of a ci$il court is not to be readily inferred and such e#clusion must be clear 'gain, e$en when the jurisdiction of a ci$il court is barred, either e#pressly or by necessary implication, it cannot be said that the jurisdiction is altogether e#cluded ' court has jurisdiction to e#amine whether the pro$isions of the act and the rules made thereunder ha$e or ha$e not been complied with, or the order is contrary to law, malafide, ultra $ires, per$erse, arbitrary, EpurportedF, $iolati$e of the principles of natural justice, or is based on Eno e$idenceF and so on In all these cases, the order cannot be said to be under the act but is de hors the act and the jurisdiction of a ci$il court is not ousted In the leading decision of *ecretary of *tate $ +ask K &o, the ri$y &ouncil rightly obser$ed: Git is settled law that the e#clusion of the jurisdiction of the ci$il court is not to be readily inferred, but that such e#clusion must either be e#plicitly e#pressed or clearly implied It is also well established that e$en if jurisdiction is so e#cluded the ci$il courts ha$e jurisdiction to e#amine into cases where the pro$isions of the act ha$e not been complied with, or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedureH It is respectfully submitted that the following obser$ations of *ubba 1ao, J(as he then was) in the leading case of 1adha 5ishan $ Ludhiyana +unicipality lay down the correct legal position regarding jurisdiction of ci$il courts and re=uire to be produced: Gunder section ; of the ci$il procedure code the court shall ha$e jurisdiction to try all suits of ci$il nature e#cepting suits of which cogni3ance is either e#pressly or impliedly barred ' statute, therefore, e#pressly or by necessary implication can bar the jurisdiction of ci$il courts in respect of a particular matter !he mere conferment of special jurisdiction on a tribunal in respect of the said matter does not in itself e#clude the jurisdiction of ci$il courts !he statute may specifically pro$ide for ousting the jurisdiction of ci$il courts e$en if there was no such specific e#clusion, if it creates liability not e#isting before and gi$es a special and particular remedy for the aggrie$ed party, the remedy pro$ided by it must be followed !he same principle would apply if the statute had pro$ided for the particular forum in which the remedy could be had 7$en in such cases, the ci$il courtFs jurisdiction is not completely ousted ' suit in a ci$il court will always lie to =uestion the order of a tribunal created by statute, e$en if its order is, e#pressly or by necessary implication, made final, if the said tribunal abuses its power or does not act under the act but in $iolation of its pro$isionsH
#$clusion of +urisdiction of civil court: !rinci!les 4rom the abo$e discussion it is clear that the jurisdiction of ci$il courts is all embracing e#cept to the e#tent it is e#cluded by law or by clear intendment arising from such law In the classic decision of %hulabhai $ *tate of +, after considering a number of cases, idyatullah, &J summari3ed the following principles relating to the e#clusion of jurisdiction of ci$il courts: a 0here a statute gi$es finality to orders of special tribunals, the ci$il courts jurisdiction must be held to be e#cluded if there is ade=uate remedy to do what the ci$il courts would normally do in a suit *uch a pro$ision, howe$er, does not e#clude those cases where the pro$isions of a particular act ha$e not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with fundamental principles of judicial procedure
b 0here there is an e#press bar of jurisdiction of a court, an e#amination of the scheme of a particular act to find the ade=uate or sufficiency of the remedies pro$ided may be rele$ant but this is not decisi$e for sustaining the jurisdiction of a ci$il court 0here there is no e#press e#clusion, the e#amination of the remedies and the scheme of a particular act to find out the intendment becomes necessary and the result of the in=uiry may be decisi$e In the latter case, it is necessary to see if a statute creates a special right or a liability and pro$ides for the determination of the right or liabilit y and further lays down that all =uestions about the said right and liability shall be determined by tribunals so constituted, and whether remedies normally associated with actions in ci$il courts are prescribed by the said statute or not c challenge to the pro$isions of a particular act as ultra $ires cannot be brought before tribunals constituted under that act 7$en the high court cannot go into that =uestion on a re$ision or reference from decisions of tribunals d 0hen a pro$ision is already declared unconstitutional or the constitutionality of any pro$isions is to be challenged, a suit is open ' writ of certiorari may include a direction for refund if the claim is clearly within the time prescribed by the limitation act but it is not a compulsory remedy to replace a suit e 0here the particular act contains no machinery for refund of ta# collected in e#cess of constitutional limits or is illegally collected, a suit lies f uestions of the correctness of an assessment, apart from its constitutionality, are for the decision of the authori3ed and a ci$il suit does not lie if the orders of the authorities are declared to be final or there is an e#press prohibition in a particular act In either case, the scheme of a particular act must be e#amined because it is a rele$ant en=uiry g 'n e#clusion of jurisdiction of a ci$il court is not readily to be inferred unless the conditions abo$e set down apply !he abo$e principles enunciated are rele$ant in deciding the correctness or otherwise of assessment orders made under ta#ing statutes In remier 'utomobiles $ 5* 0adke, the supreme court laid down the following principles as applicable to the jurisdiction of a ci$il court in relation to industrial disputes: h If a dispute is not an industrial dispute, nor does it relate to enforcement of any other right under the act, the remedy lies only in a ci$il court i If a dispute is an industrial dispute arising out of a right or liability under the general or common law and not under the act, the jurisdiction of a ci$il court is alternati$e, lea$ing it to the election of a suitor or person concerned to choose his remedy for the relief which is competent to be granted in a particular remedy j If an industrial dispute relates to the enforcement of a right or an obligation created under the act, then the only remedy a$ailable to suitor is to get adjudication under the act k If the right which is sought to be enforced is a right created under the act such as chapter M ', then the remedy for its enforcement is either section @@& or the raising of an industrial dispute, as the case may be
'gain, in 1ajasthan *tate 1oad !ransport &orpn M5rishna 5ant, after considering $arious leading decisions on the point, the *upreme &ourt summari3ed the principles applicable to industrial disputes thus: - where a dispute arises from the general law of contract, ie, where reliefFs are claimed on the basis of the general law of contract, a suit fil ed in a ci$il court cannot be said to be not maintainable, e$en though such a dispute may also constitute an Gindustrial disputeH within the meaning of section / (k) or section /' of the industrial %ispute 'ct,-;A / where, howe$er, a dispute in$ol$es recognition, obser$ance or enforcement of any of the rights or obligations created by the the industrial %ispute 'ct, the only remedy is to approach the famous created by the said act @ similarly, where a dispute in$ol$es the recognition, obser$ance or enforcement of rights and obligations created by enactments, like the industrial employment (standing order) act, -;AB which can be called Gsister enactmentsF to the industrial dispute act and which do not pro$ide a forum for resolution of such disputes, the only remedy shall be to approach the forums created by the industrial dispute act pro$ided they constitute industrial disputes within the meaning of section /(k) and section /' of the industrial dispute act or where such enactments says that such dispute shall be adjudicated by any of the forums created by the industrial disputes act therwise, recourse to a ci$il court is open A it is not correct to say that remedies pro$ided by the industrial disputes act are not e=ually effecti$e for the reason that access to a forum depends upon a reference being made by the appropriate go$ernment !he power to make a reference conferred upon the go$ernment is to be e#ercised to effectuate the object of the enactment and hence is not unguided !he rule is to make a reference unless, of course, the dispute raised is a totally fri$olous one e# facie !he power conferred is the power to refer and not the power to decide, though it may be that the go$ernment is entitled to e#amine whether the dispute is e# facie fri$olous, not meriting adjudication < consistent with the policy of law aforesaid, we commend to parliament and state legislature to make a pro$ision enabling a workman to approach the labor court ie, without the re=uirement of a reference by the go$ernment in case of industrial dispute co$ered by section /' of the industrial disputes act !his would go a long way in remo$ing the misgi$ing with respect to the effecti$eness of the remedies pro$ided by the industrial disputes act B the certified standing orders framed in accordance with the industrial dispute act and its sister enactment is to pro$ide an alternati$e dispute resolution mechanism to workmen, a mechanism which is speedy, ine#pensi$e, informal and unencumbered by the plethora of procedural laws and appeals upon appeals and re$isions applicable to ci$il courts I ndeed, the powers of courts and tribunals under the industrial disputes act are far more e#tensi$e in the sense that they can grant such relief as they think appropriate in the circumstances for putting an end to an industrial dispute Mery recently, in &handrakant !ukaram $ +unicipla &orporation of 'hmedabad, the supreme court reiterated the principles laid down in earlier decisions and stated: Git cannot be disputed that the procedure followed by ci$il courts are too lengthy and, conse=uently, are not an efficacious forum for resol$ing the industrial disputes speedily !he power of the industrial courts also is wide and such forums are empowered to grant ade=uate relief as they just and appropriate It is in the interest of the workmen that their disputes, including the dispute of illegal termination, are adjudicated upon by an industrial forumH
-eneral !rinci!les 4rom $arious decisions of the *upreme &ourt, the following general principles relating to jurisdiction of a ci$il court emerge: - ' ci$il court has jurisdiction to try all suits of a ci$il nature unless their cogni3ance is barred either e#pressly or impliedly / &onsent can neither confer nor take away jurisdiction of a court @ ' decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity and the $alidity thereof can be challenged at any stage of the proceedings, in e#ecution proceedings or e$en in collateral proceedings A !here is a distinction between want of jurisdiction and irregular e#ercise thereof < 7$ery court has inherent power to decide the =uestion of its own jurisdiction B Jurisdiction of a court depends upon the a$erments made in a plaint and not upon the defense in a written statement 4or deciding jurisdiction of a court, substance of a matter and not its form is important 7$ery presumption should be made in fa$or of jurisdiction of a ci$il court ; ' statute ousting jurisdiction of a court must be strictly construed -28urden of proof of e#clusion of jurisdiction of a court is on the party who asserts it -- 7$en where jurisdiction of a ci$il court is barred, it can still decide whether the pro$isions of an act ha$e been complied with or whether an order was passed de hors the pro$isions of law
Conclusion 4rom the abo$e contents of my project it can be concluded that section ; at Ethe threshold of the &i$il rocedure &ode (&&) primarily deals with the =uestion of ci$il courtFs jurisdiction to entertain a cause It lays down that subject to what are contained in section -2,--, -/, -@, A, BB, @, A, ;-, ;/, --<, etc, ci$il court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit of ci$il nature e#cept when its cogni3ance is e#pressly barred or barred by necessary implication ci$il court has jurisdiction to decide the =uestion of its jurisdiction although as a result of the en=uiry it may e$entually turn out that it has no jurisdiction o$er the matter &i$il court has jurisdiction to e#amine whether tribunal and =uasi judicial bodies or statutory authority acted within there jurisdiction 8ut once it is found that such authority, eg, certificate officer had initial jurisdiction, then any erroneous order by him is not open to collateral attack in a suit 8ecause there is an essential and marked distinction between the cases in which courts lack jurisdiction to try cases and where jurisdiction is irregularly e#ercised by courts
