EXPLAIN THAT THE COURT HAS INHERENT JURISDICTION TO

TAKE COGNIZANCE OF ALL THE SUITS OF A CIVIL NATURE

Abstract

There is an inherent right to every person to bring a suit of civil nature and unless the suit is
barred by statute, one may, at his peril, bring a suit of his choice. A suit for its maintainability
requires no authority of law and it is enough that no statute bars the suit. This has been
recognised under Section 9 of Civil Procedure Code which has been interpreted by the judiciary
over a span of time adding new dimensions to its applicability. The following analysis would
focus on the evolution of Section 9 that grants inherent jurisdiction to the Court to try all matters
of civil nature. Emphasis would also be laid on the significance of ouster clause in this analysis.

The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is defined under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908
as follows:

Section 9: Courts to try all civil suits unless barred.- The Courts shall (subject to the provisions
herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their
cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.

[Explanation I. – A suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of a

civil nature, notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of questions as
to religious rites or ceremonies.]

[Explanation II. – For the purposes of this section, it is immaterial whether or not any fees are
attached to the office referred to in Explanation I or whether or not such office is attached to a
particular place.]
Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction means and includes any authority conferred by the law upon the court,
tribunal or judge to decide or adjudicate any dispute between the parties or pass judgment or
order. Exclusion of jurisdiction means prevention or prohibition to the court not to entertain or
try any matter though the dispute is civil in nature.1
Jurisdiction in a technical sense means the extent of authority of a Court to administer justice not
only with reference to the subject-matter of the suit but also to the local and pecuniary limits of
its jurisdiction.2
It implies two things:
i. Jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit, and
ii. A power to make an order.3

Essential Conditions for a Court: To constitute a Court, an essential condition is that the Court
should have the power to give a decision or a definite judgment which has finality and
authoritativeness, apart from having some of the trapping of a judicial tribunal.4

Exclusion of Civil Court’s Jurisdiction- Tests: The jurisdiction of the Civil Court to deal with
civil causes can be excluded by the legislature by special Acts to deal with special subject
matters. The statutory provision must expressly provide for such exclusion or must necessarily
and inevitably lead to that inference. One test is whether the special statute which excludes such
jurisdiction has used clear and unambiguous words indicating that intention. Another test is:
Does the said statute provide for an adequate and satisfactory alternative to a party that may be
aggrieved by the relevant order under its material provision?5
The exclusion of Civil Court’s jurisdiction should not be readily inferred. The statute ousting
jurisdiction of Civil Court must do so in express terms or by use of such terms as would
necessarily lead to such inference.6

1
Smt Ujjambai vs State of UP AIR 1962S 162
2
Official Trustee, W.B. v. Sachindra, AIR 1969 SC 823
3
Kalyan Biswas v. Bahadur Khan, AIR 1925 Cal 1258
4
[Link] v. State Bank of India, AIR 2000 SC 2023 (2025) : (2000) 5 SCC 355
5
Ram Swarup v. Shikarchand, AIR 1966 SC 893 : (1966) 2 SCR 553
6
Musamian Imam H.B. Razvi v. R.G. Ratnabai, AIR 1969 SC 439 (446)

Page | 2
An existence of special remedy under special statute does not necessarily oust the jurisdiction of
Civil Court to entertain the suit.7
A party seeking to oust the jurisdiction of ordinary Civil Court must establish its right to do so.8
The principle for determining such an ouster is that the scheme and object of Act should be
considered. A question of ouster of jurisdiction should not be divided only having regard to
reliefs claimed.9

Suits of ‘Civil Nature’: Suits may be divided into two classes: those which are of civil nature
and those which are not of civil nature. Some examples of suits of suits of civil nature are as
follows:

 Right to worship:
A right to worship is a civil right. Interference with such a right raises a dispute of civil
nature. The disputes which are in respect of rituals or ceremonies alone, cannot be
adjudicated by Civil Courts if they are not essentially connected with civil rights of
individuals or a section on behalf of whom the suit is filed.10
The Supreme Court has laid down certain principles deciding the question as to whether a
right to a religious office would be a right of civil nature or not? These are:
i. A suit for declaration with respect to religious honours and privileges simpliciter will not
lie in a Civil Court.
ii. However, a suit to establish one’s right to an office in a temple and to honours,
privileges, remuneration or requisites, attached to such an office will be maintainable in a
Civil Court.
iii. The condition for the existence of an office is that the holder of the alleged office should
be under a legal obligation to discharge the duties attached to the said office, for non-
observance of which penalties can be inflicted on him.11

7
Firm of Illury Subbayya Chetty v. State of A.P., AIR 1964 SC 322 (324) : (1964) 1 SCR 752
8
Vedagiri LNS Temple v. I. Pattabhirami, AIR 1967 SC 781 (785)
9
Church of North India v. Lavajibhai Ratanjibhai, AIR 2005 SC 2544 (2555)
10
Ugam Singh v. Kesrimal, AIR 1971 SC 2540 (2545)
11
Sinha Ramanuja v. Ranga Ramanuja, AIR 1961 SC 1720

Page | 3
  Suit for office:
Where some duties are attached to some office either by custom or by usage, the right to
hold such an office is of civil nature. However, where no duties are attached to the office,
no suit will lie in a Civil Court.12
 Right of persons elected as Directors or Chairman as such:
The right of a person elected as a director of a company to act in that capacity is a civil
right and a suit will lie for an injunction for restraining other directors.13
Similarly, a suit will lie for a declaration that the removal by the State Government of a
person from the Chairmanship of the District Board was illegal and for an injunction
restraining interference with his work as a Chairman.14

Suits which are not of civil nature:

 Suits relating purely to religious rites or ceremonies:

It is not the province or the duty of a Civil Court to pronounce on the truth of religious
tenets and to regulate religious rites or ceremonies.15

 Act of State:
A Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain suits in respect of act of State. An act of
State may be generally defined as an act done or adopted by a State in its sovereign
capacity and injurious to the person or property of some person who is not at the time of
that act, a subject of the State.16

12
Rama Swami Goundan v. Lakshmana Reddi, AIR 1939 Mad 886
13
Sarat Chandra Chakravati v. Tarak Chandra Chatterjee, AIR 1924 Cal 982 (DB)
14
Moulvi Lutfur Rahaman v. Moulvi Waliur Rahaman, AIR 1943 Cal 59 (DB)
15
Narayan Mudali v. Peria Kalathi Mudali, AIR 1939 Mad 494
16
Bhavani Shankar v. Soma Sundara, AIR 1965 SC 316

Page | 4
Analysis:

One of the basic principles of law is that every right has a remedy. Ubi jus ibi remedium is a well
known maxim. Every civil suit is cognizable unless it is barred. The two explanations are
structured on the basic principle of a civilized jurisprudence that absence of machinery for
enforcement of right renders it nugatory.

The normal rule of law is that Civil Courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature except
those of which cognizance by them is either expressly or impliedly excluded as provided under
Section 9 of C.P.C. but such exclusion is not readily inferred and the presumption to be drawn
must be in favour of the existence rather than exclusion of jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to try
civil suit. The test adopted in examining such a question is (i) whether the legislative intent to
exclude arises explicitly or by necessary implication, and (ii) whether the statute in question
provides for adequate and satisfactory alternative remedy to a party aggrieved by an order made
under it.17

Also, if the liability as well as the remedies for the same are created by an Act, normally the
Civil Court’s jurisdiction is excluded unless there is a case that the proceedings before the
authorities were not done in accordance with the Act or against the principles of natural justice.18

Moreover, in order to determine whether a suit is cognizable by the Civil Court, the allegations
in the plaint have to be examined. Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction to try the suit, being
a mixed question of law and fact, held, cannot be decided at the stage of deciding the application
for temporary injunction and for that, only the averments made in the plaint can be looked into.19

17
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Manjeti Laxmi Kantha Rao, AIR 2000 SC 2220
18
District Executive Officer v. V.K. Pradeep, (1999) 1 Ker LJ 492
19
John Richard v. Chemical Process Equipments, AIR 1987 Del 372

Page | 5
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Bhavani Shankar v. Soma Sundara, AIR 1965 SC 316

 Church of North India v. Lavajibhai Ratanjibhai, AIR 2005 SC 2544 (2555)

 District Executive Officer v. V.K. Pradeep, (1999) 1 Ker LJ 492
 Firm of Illury Subbayya Chetty v. State of A.P., AIR 1964 SC 322 (324) : (1964) 1 SCR
752
 John Richard v. Chemical Process Equipments, AIR 1987 Del 372

 Kalyan Biswas v. Bahadur Khan, AIR 1925 Cal 1258

 Manupatra

 Moulvi Lutfur Rahaman v. Moulvi Waliur Rahaman, AIR 1943 Cal 59 (DB)
 Musamian Imam H.B. Razvi v. R.G. Ratnabai, AIR 1969 SC 439 (446)

 Narayan Mudali v. Peria Kalathi Mudali, AIR 1939 Mad 494

 Official Trustee, W.B. v. Sachindra, AIR 1969 SC 823
 [Link] v. State Bank of India, AIR 2000 SC 2023 (2025) : (2000) 5 SCC 355
 Ram Swarup v. Shikarchand, AIR 1966 SC 893 : (1966) 2 SCR 553
 Rama Swami Goundan v. Lakshmana Reddi, AIR 1939 Mad 886
 Sarat Chandra Chakravati v. Tarak Chandra Chatterjee, AIR 1924 Cal 982 (DB)
 SCC OnLine
 Sinha Ramanuja v. Ranga Ramanuja, AIR 1961 SC 1720
 Smt Ujjambai vs State of UP AIR 1962S 162

 State of Andhra Pradesh v. Manjeti Laxmi Kantha Rao, AIR 2000 SC 2220
 Ugam Singh v. Kesrimal, AIR 1971 SC 2540 (2545)
 Vedagiri LNS Temple v. I. Pattabhirami, AIR 1967 SC 781 (785)

Page | 6