MODULE V

 Essentials: Opposing parties, subject-matter in dispute, cause of action, and relief.

 Place of suing (s.15-20)
 Objections and Transfer of cases (s.21-25)
 Checklist for the institution
 Modes of filing a suit:
i. Physical Filing
ii. E-Filing
1. INTRODUCTION

The Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) is a comprehensive legislation that governs
the procedural aspects of civil litigation in India. Sections 26 to 35-B and Orders 1 to
20 of the First Schedule specifically deal with the procedure relating to suits. Among
these, Orders 1, 2, and 4 are particularly important as they provide detailed
provisions for parties to a suit, the frame of the suit, and the institution of suits
respectively.

Understanding the proper institution of a suit is fundamental to civil litigation, as it

marks the beginning of the judicial process. The Code lays down specific
requirements and procedures that must be followed to ensure that a suit is properly
instituted and can proceed before the court. Any defect in the institution of a suit
may result in its rejection or dismissal, thereby denying the plaintiff access to justice.

2. SUIT: MEANING AND DEFINITION

The term “suit” has not been explicitly defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
This deliberate omission ensures that the term remains flexible and can encompass
various forms of civil proceedings without being restricted by a rigid definition.

According to the dictionary meaning, “suit” is a generic term of comprehensive

signification. It refers to any proceeding by one person or persons against another or
others in a court of law, wherein the plaintiff pursues the remedy which the law
affords him for the redress of any injury or the enforcement of a right, whether at
law or in equity.

In common parlance and legal practice, the term “suit” is taken to include all
proceedings of a judicial or quasi-judicial nature in which the disputes of aggrieved
parties are adjudicated before an impartial forum.

In Ethiopian Airlines v. Ganesh Narain Saboo (2011) 8 SCC 539, the Supreme Court
of India held that the term “suit” is a general term that includes all actions which are
to be taken by a person to enforce a legal right that has been vested by law. This
interpretation emphasizes that a suit is the mechanism through which individuals can
seek judicial intervention to protect or enforce their legal rights.
According to Section 2(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963, the term “suit” does not
include an appeal or an application. This distinction is crucial because different
limitation periods and procedural rules apply to suits, appeals, and applications.

Ordinarily, a suit is a civil proceeding instituted by the presentation of a plaint. The

plaint is a written statement containing the plaintiff's version of facts, the legal
grounds for the claim, and the relief sought from the court.

3. ESSENTIALS OF A SUIT

For a suit to be properly maintainable before a court of law, it must satisfy certain
fundamental requirements. These requirements, known as the essentials of a suit,
ensure that only legitimate claims that can be adjudicated by the court are brought
before it. There are four essential elements that must be present in every suit:

3.1 The Opposing Parties

In every suit there must be at least one plaintiff and one defendant. The plaintiff is
the person who initiates the suit seeking relief from the court, while the defendant is
the person against whom the suit is filed and from whom the relief is sought.

There may be more than one plaintiff and more than one defendant in a suit. This
situation arises where an act or transaction proceeds from two or more persons or
affects two or more persons. For example, in cases of joint property, partnership
disputes, or joint contracts, there may be multiple parties on either or both sides of
the litigation. The CPC provides specific provisions under Order I for dealing with
suits involving multiple parties, including rules for joinder of parties and
representative suits.

The concept of opposing parties is fundamental because civil litigation is adversarial

in nature. The court acts as an impartial arbiter between the parties, adjudicating
upon their competing claims and determining their respective rights and obligations.

3.2 The Cause of Action

Every suit must contain the cause of action, which refers to the entire set of facts or
circumstances which gives a person the right to initiate legal proceedings and seek
judicial relief. It consists of every fact which is necessary to be proved to entitle the
plaintiff to a decree.

The cause of action is a crucial concept because it determines when the limitation
period begins to run, what jurisdiction the court has over the matter, and what facts
the plaintiff must prove to succeed in the suit.

In Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association v. Union of India & Ors. (2000), the
Supreme Court held that the term “cause of action” has a judicially established
meaning. It refers to the conditions surrounding the violation of the right or the
direct cause of the conduct that gives rise to the legal proceedings. The Court
emphasized that cause of action comprises every fact which, if denied, would require
proof by the plaintiff to establish his case.

It is important to note that the cause of action must exist at the time of filing the suit.
A suit cannot be filed in anticipation of a cause of action arising in the future.
Additionally, if no cause of action exists, the suit is liable to be rejected under Order
VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

3.3 The Subject Matter

The subject matter refers to the right or property that is claimed or disputed in the
suit. It is the specific thing or right over which the parties are in dispute and about
which the court is called upon to adjudicate.

The court adjudicates upon the rights of the parties with regard to the subject matter
in dispute. The subject matter may be tangible property (such as land, buildings, or
movable goods) or intangible rights (such as contractual rights, intellectual property
rights, or personal rights). The determination of the subject matter is important for
determining the court's jurisdiction, the applicable law, the appropriate relief, and the
valuation of the suit for purposes of court fees and jurisdiction.

3.4 The Relief Claimed

The relief claimed should be stated specifically in the plaint. It may be stated in the
alternative also. The relief is what the plaintiff seeks from the court as a remedy for
the wrong done to him or for the enforcement of his rights.
The relief claimed must be one which the Court is able to grant. Common forms of
relief include monetary compensation or damages, specific performance of a
contract, injunctions (prohibitory or mandatory), declarations of rights, possession of
property, partition of property, cancellation or rectification of documents, and
account and rendition of accounts.

When a person is entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of
action, he must sue for all such reliefs in the same suit. This principle, embodied in
Section 34 of the CPC, prevents multiplicity of litigation and ensures that all related
reliefs are claimed and adjudicated in a single proceeding.

4. WHO MAY FILE SUIT?

There is an inherent right in every person to bring a suit of civil nature. This right is
not granted by any statute but is a natural right flowing from the rule of law and the
principle that every person should have access to justice to protect their legal rights.

Unless a suit is specifically barred by a statute, any person may, at their own peril,
bring a suit of their choice before a competent court. The phrase "at their own peril"
signifies that if the suit is found to be without merit, frivolous, or vexatious, the
plaintiff may have to bear adverse consequences such as dismissal of the suit,
payment of costs, or even penalties.

The Supreme Court in Darshan Singh v. Ram Pal Singh, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 191
eloquently articulated this principle by holding that “a suit for its maintainability
requires no authority of law and it is enough that no statute bars the suit.” This
landmark judgment establishes that the right to sue is presumed to exist unless there
is a specific legal prohibition against it.

However, this broad right to sue is subject to certain limitations and bars created by
various statutes. For example, certain suits may be barred by the Limitation Act,
1963 if they are filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Similarly, specific
statutes may contain provisions that bar certain types of suits.

Moreover, a person must have the legal capacity to file a suit. Minors, persons of
unsound mind, and other persons under disability must file suits through their legal
representatives (such as guardians or next friends) as provided in Order XXXII of
the CPC. The right to sue also includes the important concept of "locus standi" or
standing to sue, meaning that the person filing the suit must have a sufficient interest
in the subject matter of the suit.

5. INSTITUTION OF A SUIT

The institution of a suit marks the formal commencement of civil litigation. It is the
procedural step by which a plaintiff invokes the jurisdiction of the court and seeks
judicial determination of their claims. Section 26 and Order IV of CPC provide
detailed provisions governing the institution of suits.

A suit is said to be “instituted” when the plaint (written statement of claim) is

presented before the appropriate court having jurisdiction.

5.1 Section 26 of CPC - Manner of Institution

Section 26(1) states:

“Every suit shall be instituted by the presentation of a plaint or in such other manner
as may be prescribed.”

This provision establishes the primary mode of instituting a suit, which is the
presentation of a plaint. The plaint is a formal written document that contains the
plaintiff's version of facts, the legal grounds for the claim, and the specific relief
sought.

Section 26(2) - Affidavit Requirement:

“In every plaint, facts shall be proved by affidavit. Provided that such affidavit shall
be in the form and manner as prescribed under Order VI, Rule 15A of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908.”

This subsection, inserted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002,
mandates that the facts stated in the plaint must be verified by way of an affidavit.
This requirement serves to ensure greater accountability of the plaintiff, discourage
false or frivolous plaints, and reduce the burden on the judiciary by filtering out non-
genuine cases at the threshold.
 5.2 Objectives of Section 26

The provisions of Section 26 serve several important objectives:

i. Ensures that only genuine cases are brought before the court
ii. Prevents frivolous litigation and abuse of legal process
iii. Enhances accountability of plaintiffs for facts stated in plaints
iv. Provides a mechanism for preliminary scrutiny of claims
v. Making false statements in an affidavit can lead to prosecution for perjury

5.3 Order IV, Rule 1 - Form and Filing of Plaint

Rule 1 of Order IV provides:

(1) Every suit shall be instituted by presenting a plaint in duplicate to the Court or to
such officer as it appoints in this behalf.

(2) Every plaint shall comply with the rules contained in Orders VI and VII, so far as
they are applicable.

(3) The plaint shall not be deemed to be duly instituted unless it complies with the
requirements specified in sub-rules (1) and (2).

Analysis of Rule 1:

Sub-rule (1) - Presentation in Duplicate: The plaint must be presented in duplicate

(two copies). One copy is retained by the court for its records, and the other copy is
served upon the defendant.

Sub-rule (2) - Compliance with Orders VI and VII: The plaint must comply with the
requirements laid down in Order VI (which deals with pleadings generally) and
Order VII (which specifically deals with the plaint and provides grounds for its
rejection).

Sub-rule (3) - Condition for Proper Institution: A plaint shall not be deemed to be
duly instituted unless it complies with the requirements specified in sub-rules (1) and
(2). This has important implications for the commencement of the limitation period
and the court's jurisdiction.
5.4 Order IV, Rule 2 - Registration of Suits

Rule 2 of Order IV states:

"The Court shall cause the particulars of every suit to be entered in a book to be kept
for the purpose and called the register of civil suits. Such entries shall be numbered
every year according to the order in which the plaints are admitted."

This rule provides for the systematic registration of all suits filed in the court. The
registration creates an official record, assigns a unique case number to each suit,
establishes the chronological order of filing, and helps in maintaining proper records
and statistics.

6. ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR INSTITUTING A SUIT

For a suit to be properly instituted and proceed before the court, several essential
requirements must be satisfied:

6.1 Presentation of Plaint

A plaint is a written document containing the facts of the case, legal claims, and
relief sought. It must be filed before a competent court having jurisdiction. The
plaint must be presented in duplicate as required by Order IV, Rule 1.

6.2 Payment of Court Fees

A suit is not considered properly instituted unless the required court fee is paid. The
Court Fees Act, 1870 governs the payment of court fees. The valuation depends on
the nature of the suit (e.g., property disputes, contract claims).

In Madan Lal v. Shyamlal (2002), the Supreme Court ruled that failure to affix
proper court fees can lead to the rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of
the CPC. This emphasizes the mandatory nature of the court fee requirement.

6.3 Affidavit Verification

The plaintiff must verify the facts mentioned in the plaint through an affidavit as
mandated by Section 26(2). The affidavit must be in the form and manner prescribed
under Order VI, Rule 15A. This reduces the risk of false claims and ensures
accountability.
 6.4 Vakalatnama (If a Lawyer is Appointed)

If a plaintiff hires a lawyer, a Vakalatnama (authority letter) must be filed. The

Vakalatnama is a document of authority by which the plaintiff authorizes the lawyer
to appear and act on their behalf in the proceedings.

6.5 Proper Jurisdiction

The suit must be filed before a court that has proper jurisdiction over the matter.
Jurisdiction has three aspects: pecuniary jurisdiction (based on the value of the suit),
territorial jurisdiction (based on location), and subject matter jurisdiction (based on
the type of case).

7. IMPORTANT CASE LAWS ON INSTITUTION OF SUIT

7.1 Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India (2005)

This landmark judgment of the Supreme Court dealt with the constitutional validity
of the amendment introducing the affidavit requirement under Section 26(2) of the
CPC. The Supreme Court upheld the requirement of affidavit verification with the
plaint to prevent misuse of litigation.

Key Observations:

 The requirement does not violate Article 21 or Article 14 of the Constitution

 The amendment is a reasonable measure to check frivolous and vexatious litigation
 The provision promotes judicial efficiency by filtering out false claims at the
threshold
 Access to justice does not mean courts should be flooded with false claims

7.2 K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy (2011)

In K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy (2011), the Supreme Court emphasized that suits
must be properly instituted by following procedural laws, failing which they can be
dismissed.

Important Principles:

 Procedural requirements are not merely technical formalities but essential for orderly
administration
 A suit not complying with mandatory requirements cannot be allowed to proceed
 Courts must examine whether suits are properly instituted before allowing them to
proceed

7.3 Madan Lal v. Shyamlal (2002)

The Supreme Court ruled that failure to affix proper court fees can lead to the
rejection of the plaint. If insufficient court fee is paid, the court must give the
plaintiff an opportunity to make up the deficit. If the plaintiff fails to pay the deficit
within the time allowed, the plaint shall be rejected.

8. DETAILED PROCEDURE FOR INSTITUTING A SUIT

8.1 Step 1: Drafting the Plaint

The plaint should include:

 Name of the court

 Names and addresses of plaintiff and defendant
 Facts establishing jurisdiction
 Concise statement of facts constituting cause of action
 Relief sought with sufficient particularity
 Valuation of the suit
 Signature and verification

8.2 Step 2: Payment of Court Fees

The plaintiff must pay the prescribed fees based on the case value and nature of
relief claimed.

8.3 Step 3: Filing of Plaint Before Competent Court

The plaint must be filed before a court that has jurisdiction over the matter.

8.4 Step 4: Verification by Affidavit

The plaintiff must submit a verified affidavit attesting to the truthfulness of facts.
 8.5 Step 5: Scrutiny & Registration

The court office checks the plaint for errors or deficiencies. If found correct, the suit
is registered, and a case number is assigned.

8.6 Step 6: Issuance of Summons (Order 5, CPC)

The court issues summons to the defendant to appear and file a written statement.
The summons, along with a copy of the plaint, is served on the defendant.

9. CAN A SUIT BE REJECTED AFTER INSTITUTION?

Yes, the suit may be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 (Rejection of Plaint) if:

 The plaint does not disclose a cause of action

 The court lacks jurisdiction (pecuniary, territorial, or subject-matter)
 The plaintiff fails to pay court fees after being given an opportunity
 The suit is barred by law (such as Limitation Act or specific statutes)
 The relief claimed is undervalued and plaintiff fails to correct valuation

When a plaint is rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, it has the effect of dismissing the
suit. However, the order rejecting the plaint is appealable. The plaintiff may file a
fresh suit after rectifying the defects, subject to limitation periods.
 10. PLACE OF SUING (SECTIONS 15-20)

The determination of appropriate jurisdiction for instituting civil suits is fundamental

to procedural law, ensuring orderly administration of justice. The Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 establishes comprehensive provisions governing where legal
proceedings may be commenced, balancing convenience with judicial efficiency.
These provisions prevent forum shopping while ensuring access to justice through
clear territorial jurisdiction guidelines.

10.1 Section 15 - Fundamental Principle of Court Hierarchy

Section 15 states:

"Every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it."

This principle ensures efficient utilization of judicial resources and prevents higher
courts from handling matters suitable for subordinate courts. Court competency is
determined by territorial jurisdiction and pecuniary limits prescribed by law.

Nature and Scope:

Section 15 refers to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. It is a rule of procedure

and does not affect the jurisdiction of the court. Hence, a decree passed by a court of
a higher grade cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. It is merely an irregularity
covered by Section 99 of the Code and the decree passed by the court is not a nullity.

Object:

 To ensure that courts of higher grades shall not be overburdened with suits
 To afford convenience to the parties and witnesses who may be examined in such
suits

Mode of Valuation:

Prima facie, it is the plaintiff's valuation in the plaint that determines the jurisdiction
of the court and not the amount for which ultimately the decree may be passed by the
court. Thus, if the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court of the lowest grade is, say, Rs
10,000 and the plaintiff files a suit for accounts and finally the court finds on taking
the accounts that Rs 15,000 are due, the court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to
pass a decree for that amount.

In Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, a suit was valued at Rs 2,950 and was filed in
the court of the Subordinate Judge, Monghyr. On appeal, the High Court held that
the correct valuation was Rs 9,880. The appellant contended that the appeal to the
District Court was incompetent and should be treated as a First Appeal to the High
Court. The Supreme Court negatived this contention and held that the decree passed
by the District Court was not a nullity and that a mere change of forum cannot be
said to have caused prejudice to the appellant.
 10.2 Section 16 - Immovable Property Disputes

Section 16 provides:

Suits relating to immovable property must be instituted in the court within whose
local limits the property is situated, with exception for relief obtainable through
defendant's personal obedience.

Sections 16 to 18 deal with suits relating to immovable property. Section 16

covers five kinds of suits:

1. Suits for recovery of immovable property with or without rent or profits

2. Suits for partition of immovable property
3. Suits for foreclosure, sale or redemption in case of mortgage of or charge upon
immovable property
4. Suits for determination of any other right to or interest in immovable property
5. Suits for compensation for wrong to immovable property

These suits must be filed in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the
property is situated. This rule is based on the principle of "lex situs" (law of the
place where the property is situated).

Exception to Section 16:

A suit to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immovable property
held by or on behalf of the defendant may, where the relief sought can be entirely
obtained through his personal obedience, be instituted either in the Court within the
local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situated, or in the Court within the
local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant actually and voluntarily resides, or
carries on business, or personally works for gain.

Example: For an injunction against construction on Delhi land, suit may be filed in
Delhi (property location) or defendant's residence city, as the injunction only
requires the defendant's personal obedience.

10.3 Section 17 - Multi-Jurisdictional Property

Section 17 states:
Where a suit is to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immovable
property situated within the jurisdiction of different Courts, the suit may be instituted
in any Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property
is situated, provided that the entire claim is cognizable by such Court.

When property spans different court territories, suit may be filed in any court having
jurisdiction over any portion, provided it can handle the entire claim value. This
provision is intended for the benefit of suitors and to prevent multiplicity of suits.

10.4 Section 18 - Uncertain Boundaries

A case may arise where it is not possible to say with certainty that the property is
situated within the jurisdiction of one or the other of several courts. In such a case,
one of these courts, if it is satisfied that there is such uncertainty, may after recording
a statement to that effect proceed to entertain and dispose of the suit.

For uncertain jurisdictional boundaries, any competent court may record uncertainty
and proceed, with limited appellate interference.
10.5 Section 19 - Personal Injury and Movable Property Claims

Section 19 provides:

For compensation suits regarding wrongs to person or movable property, jurisdiction

lies either where wrong occurred or where defendant resides/works. This provision is
based on the principle "mobilia sequuntur personam" (movables follow the person).

A suit for wrong to movable property may be brought at the option of the plaintiff
either at the place where the wrong is committed or where the defendant resides,
carries on business or personally works for gain.

Illustrations:

(i) A, residing in Delhi, beats B in Calcutta. B may sue A either in Calcutta (where
the wrong was committed) or in Delhi (where A resides).

(ii) A, residing in Delhi, publishes in Calcutta statements defamatory to B. B may

sue A either in Calcutta or in Delhi.

(iii) A, residing in Delhi, publishes in Calcutta statements defamatory to B. The

newspaper is circulated in Bombay, Madras and Raipur. B may sue A either in
Calcutta, or in Delhi, or in Bombay, or in Madras, or in Raipur, as defamation occurs
wherever the defamatory material is published or circulated.

Example: If A (Delhi resident) defames B through Mumbai publication, B may sue

in either Mumbai (where wrong occurred) or Delhi (defendant's residence).

10.6 Section 20 - General Jurisdiction Rules

Section 20 is a residuary provision covering all other suits not dealt with by
Sections 15-19. It states:

Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within
the local limits of whose jurisdiction:

(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the
time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on
business, or personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the
commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or
personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is
given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work
for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

Illustrations:

(a) A is a tradesman in Calcutta. B carries on business in Delhi. B, by his agent in

Calcutta, buys goods of A and requests A to deliver them to the railway company. A
delivers the goods in Calcutta. A may sue B for the price either in Calcutta (where
cause of action arose) or in Delhi (where B carries on business).

(b) A resides at Simla, B at Calcutta and C at Delhi. A, B and C being together at

Banaras, B and C make a joint promissory note and deliver it to A. A may sue B and
C at Banaras (where cause of action arose), or at Calcutta (where B resides), or at
Delhi (where C resides); but in the latter two cases, if the non-resident defendant
objects, the suit cannot proceed without the leave of the court.

Example: Contract between A (Simla) and B (Delhi) executed in Mumbai for

Chennai delivery - suit possible in any of these four cities.

Corporate Entities: Deemed to carry business at principal office or subordinate

offices for local causes of action.

In Harshad Chiman Lal v. DLF Universal Ltd., the Supreme Court held that plain
reading of Section 20 of the Code leaves no room for doubt that it is a residuary
provision and covers those cases not falling within the limitations of Sections 15 to
19. The opening words ("Subject to the limitations aforesaid") make it abundantly
clear that the section takes within its sweep all personal actions.
10.7 Jurisdiction as to Subject-Matter

Different courts have been empowered to decide different types of suits. Certain
courts have no jurisdiction to entertain certain suits. For instance, the Presidency
Small Cause Court has no jurisdiction to try a suit for specific performance of a
contract. Likewise, suits for testamentary succession, divorce cases, probate
proceedings, insolvency matters, etc. cannot be entertained by a Court of Civil Judge
(Junior Division). This is called jurisdiction as to the subject-matter of the suit.

Where a court has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of a suit, there is inherent
lack of jurisdiction and a decree passed, judgment rendered or order made is a
nullity.

10.8 Forum Shopping

The Supreme Court has not only disapproved but strongly deprecated the practice
and increasing tendency on the part of litigants of choosing a forum which may
oblige them by entertaining suits or petitions though they have no jurisdiction in the
matter.

In Union of India v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd., though the registered office of the
company was at Ludhiana (Punjab), a petition was filed against it in High Court of
Calcutta and ex parte ad interim relief was obtained by the petitioner. The Supreme
Court set aside the order and observed that the action was taken as a part of
manoeuvring legal battle.

In Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das, the Supreme Court stated, "There is
an increasing tendency on the part of litigants to indulge in speculative and vexatious
litigation and adventurism which the fora seem readily to oblige. We think such a
tendency should be curbed."

In ONGC v. Utpal Kumar Basu, though no cause of action had arisen in Calcutta, the
High Court entertained a writ petition and granted interim relief. The Supreme Court
said: "We are greatly pained to say so but if we do not strongly deprecate the
growing tendency we will, we are afraid, be failing in our duty to the institution and
the system of administration of justice."
11. OBJECTION AS TO JURISDICTION (SECTION 21)

11.1 General Principles

It is a fundamental rule that a decree of a court without jurisdiction is a nullity.

Where by reason of any limitation imposed by statute, charter or commission, a
court is without jurisdiction to entertain any particular action or matter, neither the
acquiescence nor the express consent of the parties can confer jurisdiction upon the
court nor can consent give a court jurisdiction if a condition which goes to the root
of the jurisdiction has not been performed or fulfilled. Where a court takes upon
itself to exercise a jurisdiction it does not possess, its decision amounts to nothing.

However, this does not apply to territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction, inasmuch as

objections to such jurisdiction are regarded by the Code as merely technical and,
unless raised at the earliest possible opportunity, they will not be entertained in
appeal or revision for the first time.

11.2 Section 21 of CPC

Section 21 provides:

(1) No objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by any Appellate or

Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the
earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled at or before
such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.

(2) No objection as to the competence of a Court with reference to the pecuniary

limits of its jurisdiction shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless
such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible
opportunity, and, in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement,
and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.

(3) No objection as to the competence of the executing Court with reference to the
local limits of its jurisdiction shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court
unless such objection was taken in the executing Court at the earliest possible
opportunity, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.
 11.3 Object of Section 21

The object underlying Section 21 is to protect honest litigants and to avoid

harassment to plaintiffs who have bona fide and in good faith initiated proceedings
in a court which is later on found to be wanting in jurisdiction. Dishonest litigants
cannot take advantage of this provision.

11.4 Objection as to Territorial Jurisdiction

It is well-settled that the objection as to local or territorial jurisdiction of a court

(place of suing) does not stand on the same footing as the competence of a court to
try the case. Competence of a court to try a case goes to the very root of the
jurisdiction, and where it is lacking, it is a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction. On
the other hand, an objection as to the local jurisdiction of a court can be waived and
this principle has been recognised by Section 21 of the Code.

In Hira Lal Patni v. Kali Nath, where the suit which ought to have been filed in an
Agra court was filed in the Bombay High Court with the leave of the court, it was
held that the objection to such jurisdiction falls within Section 21.

Under Section 21(1), no objection as to the place of suing will be allowed by an

appellate or revisional court unless the following three conditions are satisfied:

i. The objection was taken in the court of first instance

ii. It was taken at the earliest possible opportunity and in cases where issues are
settled at or before settlement of issues
iii. There has been a consequent failure of justice

All these three conditions must coexist.

11.5 Objection as to Pecuniary Jurisdiction

As discussed above, as a general rule, it is the plaintiff's valuation in the plaint that
determines the jurisdiction of the court and not the amount for which ultimately the
decree may be passed by the court. But if the defendant disputes the valuation put by
the plaintiff, it is the duty of the trial court to inquire into it and to pass an
appropriate order.
No objection as to overvaluation or undervaluation will be allowed by any appellate
or revisional court unless the same three conditions exist: (i) the objection was taken
in the court of first instance; (ii) it was taken at the earliest possible opportunity and
in cases where issues are settled, at or before settlement of issues; and (iii) there has
been a consequent failure of justice.

Illustration: A files a suit against B to recover possession of a house. He values his

claim in the plaint at Rs 8,000. The suit is filed in court C, which has jurisdiction to
try suits of a value up to Rs 10,000. The market value of the house is Rs 12,000, but
B does not object to the jurisdiction of the court. The decree is passed in favour of A.
In appellate court, B cannot take the objection about the pecuniary jurisdiction of
court C.

In Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, the Supreme Court observed: "If the fact of an
appeal being heard by a Subordinate Court or District Court where the appeal would
have laid to the High Court if the correct valuation had been given, is itself a matter
of prejudice, then the decree passed by the Subordinate Court must, without more, be
liable to set aside, and the words 'unless the over-valuation or undervaluation thereof
has prejudicially affected the disposal of the suit or appeal on its merits' would
become wholly useless. These words clearly show that the decrees passed in such
cases are liable to be interfered with in an appellate court, not in all cases and as a
matter of course, but only if prejudice such as is mentioned in the section results."

11.6 Objection as to Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

A court cannot adjudicate upon a subject-matter, which does not fall within its
province as limited or defined by law. A jurisdiction as to the subject-matter of a suit
is regarded as essential, for jurisdiction over the subject-matter is a condition
precedent or a sine qua non to the acquisition of authority over the parties and the
matter, and if the court does not possess that jurisdiction, a judgment given, order
made or decree passed is absolutely null and void, which may be set aside in appeal,
review or revision. Its validity can be challenged even in collateral proceedings.
11.7 Bar of Suit - Section 21-A

Section 21-A, as inserted by the Amendment Act of 1976, specifically provides that
no substantive suit can be filed to set aside a decree passed by a court on an
objection as to the place of suing. The provision speaks of place of suing (territorial
limits) only and does not deal with pecuniary limits or defects. However, the
principle applicable to territorial defects will apply to pecuniary defects as well.
 12. OBJECTIONS AND TRANSFER OF CASES (SECTIONS 22-25)

When a plaintiff initiates a lawsuit in their preferred location, as outlined in the Code
of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC), the defendant is required to appear before the Court
and submit a written statement, presenting objections to the plaintiff's suit. If the
defendant raises concerns related to the court's jurisdiction based on provisions of
the CPC, the court must initially address the jurisdictional issue.

Sections 22 to 25 of CPC deal with the transfer and withdrawal of suits, appeals and
other proceedings.

12.1 Section 22 - Power to Transfer Suits

Section 22 deals with the power to transfer suits which may be instituted in
more than one Court. It states:

Where a suit may be instituted in any one of two or more Courts and is instituted in
one of such Courts, any defendant, after notice to the other parties, may, at the
earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled at or before
such settlement, apply to have the suit transferred to another Court, and the Court to
which such application is made, after considering the objections of the other parties
(if any), shall determine in which of the several Courts having jurisdiction the suit
shall proceed.

It deals with the right of a defendant to apply for transfer of a suit. This section
outlines two essential conditions that must be met before a suit transfer can be
initiated:

 The application for transfer must be made to the Court before the resolution of the
issues between the parties in the case
 Once the application for transfer has been submitted by one party, notice of this
application should be sent to the opposing party
12.2 Section 23 - Court to Which Transfer Application Made

Section 23 specifies the appropriate Court to which an application for the

transfer of a suit should be submitted based on the jurisdiction of the Courts
involved. It states:

(1) Where the several Courts having jurisdiction are subordinate to the same
Appellate Court, an application under Section 22 shall be made to the Appellate
Court.

(2) Where such Courts are subordinate to different Appellate Courts but to the same
High Court, the application shall be made to the said High Court.

(3) Where such Courts are subordinate to different High Courts, the application shall
be made to the High Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the Court in
which the suit is brought is situated.

These provisions ensure that the application for transfer is directed to the appropriate
higher authority, whether it is the same appellate court, the same high court, or a
specific high court with jurisdiction over the area where the suit was originally filed.

12.3 Section 24 - General Power of Transfer and Withdrawal

This Section deals with the general power of transfer and withdrawal. This section
allows for the exercise of the power of transfer by the District Judge or High Court
suo moto, even in the absence of a formal application for transfer from any party
involved in the case. The transfer should be based on valid and justifiable reasons,
taking into account both the law and the specific facts of the case.

Section 24 provides:

(1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after
hearing such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion without such
notice, the High Court or the District Court may at any stage—

(a) Transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it for trial or
disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same,
or
 (b) Withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court subordinate
to it, and—

 (i) Try or dispose of the same; or

 (ii) Transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and
competent to try or dispose of the same; or
 (iii) Retransfer the same for trial or disposal to the Court from which it was
withdrawn.

(2) Where any suit or proceeding has been transferred or withdrawn under sub-
section (1), the Court which is thereafter to try or dispose of such suit or proceeding
may, subject to any special directions in the case of an order of transfer, either retry
it or proceed from the point at which it was transferred or withdrawn.

(3) For the purposes of this section—

 (a) Courts of Additional and Assistant Judges shall be deemed to be subordinate to

the District Court.
 (b) "Proceeding" includes a proceeding for the execution of a decree or order.

(4) The Court trying any suit transferred or withdrawn under this section from a
Court of Small Causes shall, for the purposes of such suit, be deemed to be a Court
of Small Causes.

(5) A suit or proceeding may be transferred under this section from a Court which
has no jurisdiction to try it.

The power under this Section does not authorize the High Court to transfer any suit,
appeal, etc. from a Court subordinate to that High Court to a Court not subordinate
to that High Court.

12.4 Section 25 - Power of Supreme Court to Transfer Suits

This Section confers the Supreme Court with the authority to transfer suits or
proceedings from one state to another state's High Court or Civil Court.

Section 25 states:
 (1) On the application of a party, and after notice to the parties, and after hearing
such of them as desire to be heard, the Supreme Court may, at any stage, if satisfied
that an order under this section is expedient for the ends of justice, direct that any
suit, appeal or other proceeding be transferred from a High Court or other Civil
Court in one State to a High Court or other Civil Court in any other State.

(2) Every application under this section shall be made by a motion which shall be
supported by an affidavit.

(3) The Court to which such suit, appeal or other proceeding is transferred shall,
subject to any special directions in the order of transfer, either retry it or proceed
from the stage at which it was transferred to it.

(4) In dismissing any application under this section, the Supreme Court may, if it is
of opinion that the application was frivolous or vexatious, order the applicant to pay
by way of compensation to any person who has opposed the application such sum,
not exceeding two thousand rupees, as it considers appropriate in the circumstances
of the case.

(5) The law applicable to any suit, appeal or other proceeding transferred under this
section shall be the law which the Court in which the suit, appeal or proceeding was
originally instituted ought to have applied to such suit, appeal or proceeding.

This section ensures that the Supreme Court has the authority to intervene and
transfer cases when deemed necessary to uphold the principles of justice and
fairness.

12.5 Sufficient Grounds for Transfer of Suits

 To avoid multiplicity of proceedings or conflicting decisions

 Reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant
 Where common questions of fact and law arise between the parties
 Where balance of convenience is required
 Where transfer avoids delay and unnecessary expenses
 Where transfer prevents abuse of the process of the Court
 Where important questions of law are involved
 12.6 Insufficient Grounds for Transfer of Suits

 Mere balance of convenience to the applicant

 Allegation of apprehension against fair trial without furnishing particulars
 Mere fact that the Court is situated at a long distance from the place of residence of
the applicant
 Mere fact that the judge has decided a similar point in a previous case
 13. MODES OF FILING A SUIT

In India, the filing of a lawsuit involves submitting a formal complaint (plaint) to the
court, which can be done through traditional physical methods or modern,
technology-driven electronic means (e-filing). The Supreme Court and various High
Courts are increasingly moving towards a digital, paperless system, though physical
filing remains available.

13.1 Physical Filing

Physical filing involves the traditional, in-person submission of hard copies of

pleadings, affidavits, and supporting documents to the court registry or filing
counter.

Process:

The plaintiff or their advocate gathers physical, signed, and notarized documents,
organizes them according to the prescribed format, and delivers them to the court's
designated filing counter during working hours. The documents must be properly
stamped with court fees and submitted in the required number of copies (typically
duplicate for plaints).

The court filing clerk receives the documents, verifies the court fees, checks for
completeness of required documents including plaint, affidavit, vakalatnama (if
applicable), and supporting documents. If everything is in order, the documents are
accepted, stamped with the date and time of filing, and assigned a case number. A
receipt is issued to the filer as proof of filing.

Suitability:

 Often used for complex matters involving voluminous documents

 When required by specific laws that mandate personal presentation
 When the e-filing system faces downtime or technical issues
 For litigants who are not comfortable with technology
 In remote areas where e-filing infrastructure may not be well developed

Limitations:
 Resource-intensive, requiring printing, transportation, and physical storage
 Limited to the working hours of the court registry (typically 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM)
 Involves travel costs and time for visiting the court
 Physical documents can be lost, damaged, or misplaced
 More time-consuming process compared to e-filing
 Requires maintenance of physical records and storage space

Procedure for Physical Filing:

 Prepare the plaint along with all necessary documents

 Affix appropriate court fee stamps on the plaint
 Prepare affidavit for verification of facts as per Order VI, Rule 15A
 If represented by an advocate, prepare and sign Vakalatnama
 Make requisite number of copies (usually duplicate for plaint)
 Visit the court during working hours
 Submit documents at the filing counter
 Obtain filing receipt with case number
 13.2 E-Filing

E-Filing is the digital submission of court documents via an online portal, such as
the e-Courts service ([Link] This modern method has been
introduced to make the justice delivery system more efficient, transparent, and
accessible.

Process:

Users register on the e-filing portal using identity proof such as Aadhaar card, PAN
card, or advocate enrollment number. After registration and login, they upload
digital copies (PDF format) of documents, select the appropriate case type and relief,
fill in party details and cause of action, and pay court fees online through net
banking, credit/debit cards, or UPI.

Once the e-filing is submitted, it goes through an initial scrutiny by the court office.
If any defects are found, the filer is notified and given an opportunity to rectify them.
Upon successful scrutiny, the case is registered and a case number is assigned. The
filer receives an acknowledgment via email and SMS.

Time Limitations:

The e-filing portal is generally accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, allowing
submissions outside of standard court hours. This provides significant flexibility to
litigants and advocates. However, some courts may have specific cut-off times for
considering filings made on a particular date, especially for urgent matters or matters
subject to limitation.

Signatures:

Documents can be e-signed using:

 Aadhaar-based e-signature (Aadhaar e-Sign)

 Digital Signature Certificates (DSC) issued by certifying authorities
 In some cases, scanned signatures on uploaded documents are accepted, subject to
later verification

Legal Standing:
 For the purpose of the Limitation Act, 1963, e-filing is treated under the same legal
regime as physical filing. The date of e-filing is considered the date of institution of
the suit for limitation purposes, provided all requirements are met. Courts have
recognized e-filed documents as valid substitutes for physical documents.

Mandate:

E-filing is increasingly becoming mandatory in various courts to promote paperless,

efficient, and transparent procedures. Many High Courts have made e-filing
mandatory for advocates, with limited exceptions for self-represented litigants or in
cases of technical difficulties. The Supreme Court and several High Courts have
fully adopted e-filing systems.

Advantages of E-Filing:

 Convenience of filing from anywhere at any time

 Saves time and cost of travel to court
 Environmentally friendly (paperless)
 Easy tracking of case status online
 Reduced chances of documents being lost or misplaced
 Faster processing and registration of cases
 Transparency in the filing process
 Automatic generation of acknowledgments and receipts
 Integration with cause list and case status systems

Challenges of E-Filing:

 Requires access to computer and internet connectivity

 Digital literacy is essential
 Technical glitches may cause delays or difficulties
 Cybersecurity concerns regarding sensitive documents
 May be challenging for litigants in rural or remote areas
 Initial learning curve for those unfamiliar with technology

Procedure for E-Filing:

 Register on the e-filing portal with valid credentials

 Login to the portal
 Select "New Filing" option and choose case type
 Fill in party details (plaintiff, defendant, advocates)
 Upload documents in PDF format (plaint, affidavit, annexures)
 Fill in case details and cause of action
 Calculate and pay court fees online
 Apply digital signature or e-signature
 Submit the filing
 Receive acknowledgment via email and SMS
 Track case status through the portal
14. CONCLUSION

The institution of suits is a fundamental aspect of civil litigation in India, governed

by detailed procedural provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Understanding these provisions is essential for legal practitioners, law students, and
litigants to ensure that suits are properly instituted and can proceed without
procedural defects.

The four essentials of a suit - opposing parties, cause of action, subject matter, and
relief - form the foundation of every civil proceeding. The procedural requirements
laid down in Section 26 and Order IV of the CPC, including the presentation of
plaint, payment of court fees, and verification by affidavit, ensure that only genuine
and properly formulated claims are brought before the courts.

The provisions regarding place of suing (Sections 15-20) provide clear guidelines for
determining the appropriate court having jurisdiction, balancing principles of
convenience, accessibility, and judicial efficiency. These provisions help prevent
forum shopping while ensuring access to justice.

The provisions for objections to jurisdiction and transfer of cases (Sections 21-25)
provide mechanisms for correcting jurisdictional errors and ensuring that cases are
heard in the most appropriate forum. The principles laid down in these sections, and
elaborated through judicial interpretations, strike a balance between protecting
genuine litigants and preventing abuse of the legal system.

The evolution from traditional physical filing to modern e-filing represents a

significant advancement in the administration of justice in India. While both modes
continue to coexist, the increasing adoption of e-filing reflects the judiciary's
commitment to leveraging technology for greater efficiency, transparency, and
accessibility.

Mastery of these provisions and procedures is essential for effective legal practice
and ensures that the fundamental right of access to justice is realized in a manner
that is both procedurally sound and substantively fair.
 15. KEY POINTS TO REMEMBER

Essentials of a Suit:

 Four essentials: Opposing parties, Cause of action, Subject matter, Relief claimed
 All four must be present for a valid suit

Institution Requirements:

 Presentation of plaint in duplicate

 Affidavit verification mandatory (Section 26(2))
 Payment of proper court fees
 Compliance with Orders VI and VII

Place of Suing:

 Section 15: Court of lowest grade competent to try

 Section 16: Immovable property - where property situated
 Section 19: Wrongs to person/movables - where wrong committed or defendant
resides
 Section 20: Other suits - where defendant resides or cause of action arises

Objections to Jurisdiction:

 Must be raised at earliest opportunity (Section 21)

 Territorial/pecuniary objections can be waived
 Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived

Transfer of Suits:

 Section 22: Defendant can apply for transfer

 Section 24: High Court/District Court power of transfer
 Section 25: Supreme Court can transfer between states

Modes of Filing:

 Physical Filing: Traditional method, in-person submission

 E-Filing: Online submission through e-courts portal, increasingly mandatory