 and subject matter of jurisdiction and these aspects would be vital aspects in respect of any litigation as such though I can say that a lot of jurisdiction aspects and broader issues and perspectives germane out of the civil procedure court. So primarily while we take the session forward today by Dr. Manoj Sharma an assistant professor of Rajiv Gandhi National University of law in short known as RGNNU. He would also take to us in respect of various aspects of jurisdiction but since we are already running late I would request Dr. Manoj Sharma who has been kind enough to a seat to our request to share his knowledge and the participants who are watching us live on the Facebook, YouTube and on this session could be enriched from the knowledge sharing of Dr. Manoj. Mr. Manoj you will have to unmute yourself. Yeah, yeah it's fine. Thank you, thank you. Good evening one and all and thank you Vikrachi for introducing me. At the outset I apologize for delay caused at my end. Just keep your video slightly stable because you are not coming in the full frame as such. No slightly up, slightly up. Other way round, other way round. Slightly down. Yeah, no it's fine. It's fine sir. Slightly more down. Other way round, other way round. Yeah it's fine. Just one second. I think it's fine now. Good evening one and all. As Vikrachi has right to introduce that we shall be discussing with various facets of jurisdiction. We understand that in the civil litigation finding out the jurisdiction of a court is very important. We understand that if the suit is filed in a court which does not have the jurisdiction, print can be returned under order 7 rule 10 and if a matter is decided by a court which lacks inherent jurisdiction, we understand that the decree is nullity, is null and void, is called non-judice. And therefore at the outset before we file a civil litigation, it is important to find out which court is having the territorial jurisdiction or pecuniary jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. Of course CPC does not deal with and it does not prescribe subject matter jurisdiction which is dealt with by various statutes which lay down the substantive rights as well. Similarly, territorial jurisdiction or pecuniary jurisdiction is not fixed by CPC. They are dealt with in various statutes like courts act. We understand that each state has got its own courts act. CPC only lays down the principles as to the place of swing where the suits can be fired, but it does not prescribe the specific pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction of courts. It only prescribe the principles as to the place of swing which is discussed in part one of CPC that is the general part sections 15 to 20 specifically deal with place of swing. As I said at the outset that subject matter jurisdiction is not the domain of CPC. It only lays down the consequences as to what would happen if this decrees passed by a court which does not have the jurisdiction. So coming straight to the topic that is section 15 to 20. Section 15 deals with pecuniary jurisdiction. As I said CPC does not prescribe what is the pecuniary jurisdiction of court A, court B or court C. For example, National Legal Services Authorities Act that fixes the pecuniary jurisdiction of permanent local adults. For example, Commercial Courts Act prescribes the pecuniary jurisdiction. For example, Courts Act prescribes the pecuniary jurisdiction on different courts. Section 15 lays down the principle of administrative efficiency to prevent the courts of higher grades from being overburdened with all the litigations. It lays down the simple principle of pecuniary jurisdiction that suit should be fired in the court of lowest grade which is competent to toy it. That means it prescribes that there are more than one courts which have the pecuniary jurisdiction to toy this suit. And in such a scenario, it only prescribes that in such cases suit should be fired in the court which is lowest in that grade or court of lowest grade which is competent. The court must be competent. It must have the territorial, the subject matter jurisdiction. Out of various courts of territorial and subject matter jurisdiction, the court lowest in grade suit should be fired there. But then we understand that if a suit is fired in a court of higher grade which is competent, which has the subject matter and the territorial jurisdiction, the suit will not be invalid. The court may return the plain under order 7 rule 10. Section 15 does not take away the jurisdiction of higher courts. It only prescribes as I said a rule of administrative convenience to prevent the higher courts from being overburdened that ordinarily it should be fired in the court of lowest grade which is competent to toy it. It is the general principle. But like each general principle has got its own exceptions. For example, as he said suit should be fired in the court of lowest grade. But if you see section 92 of CPC itself, which deals with the suits pertaining to public trusts, it itself describes that suit pertaining to public trust shall be fired in the principal court of territorial jurisdiction. That means in the district court. So there are exceptions. This is though the general principle that ordinarily if there are more than one courts which are competent territorially and subject matter wise to try a suit, suit should ordinarily be fired in the court of lowest grade. But it does not take away the jurisdiction of higher courts. And at the same time, if a statute prescribes that a particular type of suit shall be taken, shall be tried by a particular court, those exceptions remain as I cited one example of section 92, subsection one of the court of civil procedure itself. Section 16 to 19, before I refer to 16 to 20, if you see the category of suits which are developed by these sections, they deal with suits in respect of immobile property. For example, section 16, 17 and 18, they deal with suits pertaining to immobile property. 19 deals with the wrong stand to movable property or a wrong stand to persons and 20 deals with the regulatory suits or other category of suits. Section 16, 17 and 18, which deals with the suits pertaining to immobile property. Now, section 16 starts with the subject to pecuniary or other limits, other limitations prescribed by law. So the court which is going to entertain these would, even if it has the subject matter, it has the subject matter or the territory of jurisdiction, it must also have the pecuniary jurisdiction. That is where section 16 starts with subject to other limitations and pecuniary limitations. All suits which are mentioned in clauses A to F of section 16, subsection 1, the formula is locus, where the property is straight, that all suits pertaining to immobile property, there should be five and where the property is straight. 16, subsection 1 gives you various categories of suits, whether the suit is for recovery of immobile property or suit is for partition of immobile property or suit is for foreclosure redemption of mortgage immobile property. So suits pertaining to mortgages of immobile property for foreclosure, for sale, for redemption, for partition of immobile property or suits or a category of immobile property. All these suits, they shall be five and where that immobile property is straight. That is the locus or the citus of that immobile property that has to be seen. If you see 16 1 D that states that suits for determination of any other right to or interest in immobile property that shall also be filed at the place where the immobile property is straight. These suits may include cases where, for example, we had laws where window would have a life interest in the estate. So that suit would be covered by 16 1 D that means any other right to immobile property or any other interest in immobile property. So those suits are also required to be filed at the place where that immobile property is straight. That is the general principle again, though the proviso is giving you an exception to this general principle. We will come to the proviso later. 16 1 E deals with suits for compensation for arms done to immobile property and 16 S is a category of immobile property which is actually under attachment. Once a movable property is under attachment, it partakes the character of an immobile property and therefore in that case, also the suit is required to be filed where the citus, where the locus of the property is. But if you see the explanation appended, section 16 deals with cases where the immobile property is straight in India. Section 16 does not confirm any jurisdiction on Indian post where the immobile property is straight outside India. We understand that there are cases. For example, if you see the proviso which deals, which is based on the maximum equity action persona and the proviso therefore says if the property is held by the defendant, if the property is held by the defendant or on behalf of the defendant and the ref claimed can be entirely obtained by his personal obedience and property is straight in India. So if these three conditions are satisfied, then the explanation appended to section 16, the proviso appended to section 16 provides for a situation when the suit can be filed either where the property is straight or where the defendant carries on business. So it provides for a situation where the property is straight at one place. Defendant is carrying on business of possibly working from gain or voluntarily residing at another place and ref claimed is in respect of immobile property that immobile property is held by the defendant on his behalf and ref claimed can be entirely obtained only by ensuring the personal attendance of the defendant. In such cases, plaintiff gets an option. We understand plaintiff is the doneness litters. Now he gets the option he can file a suit at any of these places either where the immobile property is straight or where the defendant is residing voluntarily, actually habitually or where he is carrying on business or where he is possibly working again at either of these places then the suit can be filed as he said this is based on the vaccine equity action persona. So now we are filing a suit and we can file a suit at the place where the defendant is amenable where the defendant can be summoned and if the ref can be obtained entirely only by ensuring his presence then there is no need to go at a place where the immobile property is straight that is the only exception with section 16. The provider is prescribing otherwise the general principle which is prescribed in section 16 is that suits pertaining to immobile property shall be filed where that immobile property is actually straight where that immobile property the site is the locus of the immobile property. But there may be various permutation combinations. For example it may be that there is one parcel of immobile property which is straight within the jurisdiction of more than one course or there may be another circumstance where there are different immobile properties straight within the jurisdiction of different courts or different states as the case may be. And the cause of action is one one common cause of action one single instrument which is in question in these cases section 17 gives us an option that suit can be filed in any of the courts where any part of the immobile property is straight but then the condition is there should be single cause there should be one cause of action if there's a single cause of action in such cases even if the immobile property is straight within the jurisdiction of more than one course or even if there are more than one properties situated within the jurisdiction of different courts suits can be filed in a court where any portion of the property is straight and that court would be competent of course that court should have the pecuniary jurisdiction that court must have the subject matter jurisdiction that is where as I said section 16 also the polite as well as section 16 they prescribe the scope if the court is section 16 starts in subject to pecuniary and other limitations if the court is not having the pecuniary jurisdiction of course then section 16 cannot confer your jurisdiction on the court just because it has the territory of your jurisdiction if the subject matter jurisdiction not there with the court section 16 is not conferring as I said at the outset CPC does not confer jurisdiction it does not lay down which court will have the jurisdiction it is only dealing with the principles as to where the suits can be filed the subject matter the territorial the pecuniary jurisdiction they are dealt with by various other statutes not by CPC coming back to section 17 as I said that in these cases where there's a single cause of action suit can be filed anywhere where any portion of the property is straight there may be another combination combination which is covered by section 18 there may be cases when it is uncertain within whose course jurisdiction the property is straight there may be cases for example border between two districts border between two states and there's a dispute as to which court is having the territorial jurisdiction over this property over this parcel of land and suit is pertaining to the matters mentioned in section 16 clauses A to E therefore in these cases section 18 prescribes the solution it says in these cases also suit can be filed after in any of the court after according the factum that there's a dispute there's uncertainty as to the jurisdiction of the court and the court after according this factum can try the matter can entertain the suit if the court otherwise believes that it is having the territorial jurisdiction over the property so section 18 prescribes for those circumstances when it is uncertain as to within whose course jurisdiction this property is straight and it gives it instead of leaving the question open it gives the jurisdiction to the court that it can entertain the suit it can try the suit even otherwise the question as to jurisdiction is to be tried by the courts it is not to be determined by some outside authority and that is where section 18 is conferring the jurisdiction the court only after according the factum that there's an uncertainty and this court believes that this court is having the jurisdiction then the court can try this section 19 deals with suits pertaining to wrongs done to persons or movables of course CPC does not define what is meant by wrong done to a person or what is meant by wrong done to move the property it does not define what is meant by thought what is meant by wrong done and therefore we may have to see the general meaning of the term wrong done it may include violation of right some injury done invasion of property invasion of a right deprivation of some right violation of a legal right breach of contract section 19 basically deals with compensatory suits compensation for wrongs done whether to persons or to move the property as he said i do not propose to define what is meant by wrongs done neither the CPC does it basically means violation of rights violation of legal right and for that you're claiming some compensation that may be invasion of your right that may be enjoyed into a property enjoyed into a person or breach of a contract in any case section 19 says that in these cases suits can be filed where that wrong is done or where the defendant resides carries on business or personally works for game when we say wrong done we also have to keep in mind one fact that it may happen that wrong is done at one place and its consequences its effects are certain another place so when we say wrong done it encompasses both the act done and the effect thereof the act and the injury for example if i deliver a speech here and i give some defamatory remarks they are published in the newspaper and the newspaper is circulated at four five six places a wrong might have been done at Patela but then the damage is done in various five six places where that that speech is published where that defamatory remark is published so the suits can be fired at either of these places because wrong done means not only the act but also the effect also the place where the damage is done so suits can be fired at all of these places where the act has been done as well as where the effect has been felt where the injury has been done and also at the places where the defendant resides voluntarily actually or where he carries on business or where he personally works for game so option is given to the plaintiff being the dominant status he can decide at which of these places he wishes to initiate this in any case if the plaintiff has the option of instituting the suit at place a b c or d depending upon where the wrong is done where the effects are felt or where the defendant resides or where carries on business or where he personally works for game defendant also have the similar right and a section for d2 he can also apply for transfer a suit on the grounds mentioning that that section here under section 19 or generally we keep on saying that the plaintiff is the dominant status he is the master of the suit and therefore he is to decide in accordance with the law if he has got multiple forms to file a suit then he can file a suit at a forum of his choice of course i'm not at all saying that he can do forum shopping we understand that forum shopping is typically private anyways for example if the suit is pertaining to malicious prosecution suit can be fired where the wrong is done or it can also be filed where the defendant resides he carries on business or possibly works for game now what is meant by the expression he carries on business or possibly works for game again cpc does not define see if you see section 19 or section 20 section 20 of course defines in case of a corporation but it does not define what is meant by place where the business is carried on one thing which we need to keep in mind regarding section 19 says suits can be fired compensatory suits can be fired where the wrong is done and also where the defendant resides carries on business or possibly works for game all these courts have the territorial jurisdiction if they also have the subject matter and pecuniary jurisdiction then of course suits can be fired at either of these places add the option of the plaintiff one more thing which we need to as i said business what is the place of business the explanation appended to section 20 that of course defines that in case of a core question core question shall be deemed to carry on business and its sole or principal place in india even if it is not carrying out much activity is the amount of the factory is treated as some other place legal decision is created in case of core questions by explanation appended to section 20 that core question shall be deemed to carry on business at its principal or sole place of business in india but it also does not define what is meant by carrying on a business and therefore even a public trust who does not have any element of profit who is only providing beneficial services for the benefit of beneficiaries or public at large it may also be deemed it may also be carrying on business within the meaning of section 19 or 20 similarly the government government may also be carrying on business even though the government may not have any profit motive so the word carrying on business is a wider import it is not to be interpreted in the restricted in the narrow meaning to include only when some commercial activity is carried on for gain for profit motive anyways coming to section 20 which is a reasonable reason or which we say other suits one thing which you need to understand is there is an inherent overlapping between 19 and 20 20 says all other suits which are not covered by section 16 to 19 they can be fired at the place where the cause of action arises or where the defendant resides carries on business or possibly works for gain now again cpc does not define what is meant by cause of action of course we understand that cause of action is a bundle of facts it is not one fact it is the bundle of facts that bundle of facts which entitles which enables a grieved person to come to the court to establish his title to establish his claim for example in case of a contact as he said it's a bundle of facts in case of a contact entering into a contact is also a part of a cause of action it may happen that cause of action is rising at more than one places contract is entered into a place A it is to be performed at place B payment is to be made at place C so the place where the contact is reached that is also the place where part of the cause of action is rising sorry excuse me so place where the contract is entered into this one and the place where the contact is reached both are the places or where the contract was to be performed and has not been performed and therefore a breach of the contract has taken place taken place all these places are the places where the contract where the cause of action is rising wholly or in part so section 20 says all other suits which are not covered by 19 16 to 19 as I said 19 is always dealing with compensatory suits for wrongs done to persons or movers and all other suits all personal actions they can be fired in a section 20 at the place where the cause of action is rising sorry wholly or in part or where the defendant resides carries on business or firstly works for gain again the interface be dominant suitors and he has the option at any of these places he can fire you so but there may be cases when there are more than one defendants if all the defendants are riding at one place then the action can be fired matter can be fired at that place where the defendants are riding carrying on business or possibly working for gain suits can always be fired where the cause of action rises without any consent of the defendant suits can always be fired at the place where the coa cause of action is rising without the leave of the court without the consent of the defendants but if the suit is to be fired on the basis of site of defendant not on the basis of cause of action place of cause of action and there are more than one defendants they are riding at multiple places different places then the suit can be fired at any place where any of the defendant is residing if the non-Western defendants do not object but if the non-Western defendants they are objecting to the place of swing in that case suit can be fired only with the permission of the court at a place where the suit is not fired on the basis of site of cause of action suit is fired only on the basis of locus site of the defendant then it can be fired as he said either with the consent of all when the non-Western defendants do not object or with the leave of the court suit can be fired where the cause of action rises without the consent of the defendant and without the leave of the court the question which generally arises with respect to place of swing is when the parties enter into agreements there are more than one courts of concurrent jurisdiction and parties by way of agreement stipulate a clause that all suits shall be subject to jurisdiction of courts at such and such places we generally see such clauses in various commercial transactions we buy a mobile and you'll find on that the invoice that would be written also shall be subject to jurisdiction of courts at such and such place only explosive jurisdiction or such and such place alone as the case may be so the question arises what would happen the cause of action is rising at quote A partly at quote A partly at quote B the defendants are residing at quote C quote D quote D place but the contract is still stipulating parties are stipulating in that contract that all suits shall be subject to jurisdiction of courts at quote B at place B that contract is valid that contract is enforceable it is not hit by section 2328 of Indian contract act and it can be enforced and generally if the parties are stipulated out of different courts of concurrent jurisdiction parties cannot buy consent confer a jurisdiction on a court if the court is not having the consent if the court is not having the jurisdiction and parties cannot generally take up the jurisdiction of the courts what the parties can do is if there are more than one courts of concurrent jurisdiction parties can stipulate parties can decide that out of these courts of concurrent jurisdiction which court they want to fire the litigation if dispute arises and that contract is valid it is not hit by section 23 or 28 of Indian contract act and that contract can be enforced there are various judgments for example swastik gases private limited 2015 if you refer to swastik F 2013 rather i'm so sorry swastik gases private limited versus indian oil corporation 2013 where the courts screen court has categorically said that even if the expression alone exclusive have not been used there are cases when we say i mean the exclusive clause can be worded in various ways we can say all disputes shall be subject to jurisdiction of courts at batalla we can say all disputes shall be subject to jurisdiction exclusive jurisdiction of courts at batalla or jurisdiction of batalla courts only or batalla alone so there may be cases when the expression like alone only exclusive they are mentioned and there may be cases that you are writing simply all disputes shall be subject to jurisdiction of courts at batalla without mentioning exclusive alone only in swastik gases private limited versus ios indian oil corporation 2013 the screen court said it does not matter whether the word alone exclusive only have been used or not it is the intent of the parties if the court is having the jurisdiction there are multiple courts of concurrent jurisdiction parties have chosen one of them one of those forums for filing their litigation then that contract is enforceable and normally generally litigation should be filed at the place which is decided by the parties which is agreed by the parties and such a clause is not hit by indian contract it is a valid clause and it can be enforced by the court the court said express mention of one of course extorts the another and there will be parties that intended that suit shall be filed at place A then the suit should be filed at place A if that court is of course having the jurisdiction the territorial the subject matter and peccanoe jurisdiction of course if that court is not having the jurisdiction parties by consent cannot confer the jurisdiction the court if the court is not having the jurisdiction that remains a fundamental principle so that's what section 20 is dealing with but then there may be cases in case of a core question of a company if you see the explanation which is dependent on section 20 there may be cases when the core question is having only one place of business it's whole place of business or principle place of business the question of residence of core question does not arise and the core question by virtue of that legal fiction created in that explanation says it shall be deemed to carry on business at principle place of business or sole place of business but the second part of that explanation which starts with all that says in respect of the cause of action arising at some other place where the core question has a coordinate office in such cases core question shall be deemed to be carrying on business at such other place so that means in case of a core question or a company if the cause of action if there are more than one places of business there are one more than one office one is subordinate office other one is the principle of place of business so if there are more there is I mean the second part of explanation that presupposes that apart from the principle of place of business there is other place of business of the college and if the cause of action is arising at that other place then suits can be filed at that other place and they cannot be filed at the principle place of business so in case of collaborations what we have to see is where the cause of action is arising where the core question is carrying on business so it is deemed to be carrying on a business of course always at sole place of business but if the cause of action is rising in respect of a transaction entered into at some other place where the core question is also having its subordinate office then the suit can be filed at that subordinate office only that is the place where the suits can be filed that's for section 20c this apart as I said at the outset that the consequences of filing a suit at a place where the court does not have the jurisdiction they can be I mean myriad ways can be there if the court does not have the subject matter jurisdiction of course we understand that the decree is anality but so far the territorial jurisdiction or pecuniary jurisdiction is concerned which is dealt within the principles laid down in 16 to 20 section 21 and 21a they prescribe the consequences so if the suit has been filed at a place where the defendant believes that the court is not having the territorial jurisdiction then section or pecuniary jurisdiction then section 21 states that all such objections shall be raised in the court of first instance objection as to the place of swing that means as to territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction has to be raised in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all those cases where issues are settled at or before the settlement of issues that means if the objection is not raised up to this stage of settlement of issues then the objection is deemed to have been made so if you see the combined effect of section 21 and section 99 you find that if the court has decided the matter on merits then the decree shall not be assailed the decree shall not be set aside only because of technicalities and the lack of territorial or lack of pecuniary jurisdiction they have been treated as technicalities by virtue of section 99 which says no decree is to be set aside only because so section 21 right is section 99 that provides a forum to the defendant the defendant can raise objection as to place of swing but that objection shall be raised not in the opposite court not in the original court but in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity at or before the settlement of issues and if the objection has not been raised then the objection is deemed to have been waived and the decree passed by the court will be valid effective and it can be executed section 21 a was inserted by the amendment act of 1976 on the recommendations of the law commission because there was difference of opinion among various high courts some of the high courts were saying that a fresh suit on the ground of defect of jurisdiction pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction that is maintainable whereas other high courts were saying no that suit is not maintainable and therefore to curb the mischief law commission recommended that it will be inserted in the CPC and accordingly section 21 a was inserted in the court of civil procedure which bars filing of a new suit only on the ground of defecting territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction that suit is barred but then if you see the language implied in section 21 a language does not refer to or does not specifically deal with territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction there is a difference between 21 and 21 a whereas in 21 we find three subsections are there one is dealing with pecuniary jurisdiction second is dealing with territorial jurisdiction and third one is dealing with jurisdiction of execution course whereas in 21 a it is only saying the place of swing but then there are judgments of the apex court where the for example Bahrain petroleum company was a pj bapu and there are other judgments where the court has said that the expression place of swing mentioned in section 21 a would cover both pecuniary as well as territorial jurisdiction which implies that new suit on the basis of the fact of territorial pecuniary jurisdiction is not maintainable after the amendment act of 1976 was notified that is on second of a 1977 so objections as to the place of swing they can be raised in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity at or before the settlement of issues and if they are not raised then those objections are deemed to have been waived and they shall not be allowed to be raised for the first time in appropriate court or in a reasonable and if the decree is passed by the court on merits that decree shall not be sent aside merely because that there was defect in territorial pecuniary jurisdiction unless now section 21 and 99 both are using the expression unless there is a consequent failure of justice now failure of justice is a wide term and it's subjective one as well it has not been defined in cbc what is meant by failure of justice but one thing is apparent that entertaining of a matter by a court merely that thing does not amount to failure of justice it must be much more than that just because that that court has taken this jurisdiction doesn't mean there's a failure of justice and the owners of establishing the failure of justice shall be on the party who's pleading it we keep on saying this general the first impression of the first assumption is that the court had the jurisdiction the party who assails the jurisdiction of the court who says that there was the court was wrecking jurisdiction and because it lacked jurisdiction there's a failure of justice that party would have to establish the heavy burden is on that party to establish what is failure of justice in the instant case how that has been okay and then only the decree passed by a court which will have the territorial pecuniary jurisdiction can be set aside as he said at the outset and repeat at the cost of reputation that so far the subject matter jurisdiction is concerned if the court does not have the subject matter jurisdiction the decree is a nullity is null and void quorum nonjudice and this can be this objection can be raised at any stage of the proceedings even at the collector proceeding this objection can be that is a little bit about place of yes banoji yeah so you're talking about speak in 40 or minutes as was told to me no no we can never tell they say that actually these are the basic guidelines since the courts have started and the students exams are there so we have actually started compressing I was sharing with someone someone asked me that what is the best way so he said there was an article written by this Mr. Nariman he said we want a speech to be given by you in for one hour when when are you ready because it's a hearsay he said that since it is for one hour I can speak immediately they said but if you have to give it in five minutes then he said give me five minutes then give me five days they said that why for five minutes you have to take one week and one for one hour you you say I can speak extempore he says an extempore for a compressed manner you have to give every relevant fact whereas in one hour you can slightly shift here and there so as in when we are squeezing in the time we feel that we should have the compressed form of the what we actually want to I would just see as to whether you would have to unmute yourself I'm seeing as to whether we have any questions on this platform we are not having but I will just see on the facebook also no so so Dr. Manoj it was a session quite engaging and as we had already said that it will take the gamut not only of the civil procedure code but the other aspects as to how we can see and what is the effect as to when the plane can be returned etc etc so thank you to all those participants who have been watching us live on the facebook youtube and on this platform do stay connected with us the before he's really we're getting ourselves Navin Kumar says does plaintiff has any say in section 22 the only thing section 22 says is that when the defendant moves an application for transfer of his suit he shall do so after notice to all others whether they are cooperatives court defendants or the opposite party so notice has to be given to one and all before that application I mean when that application is filed and then of course the court will decide yeah so giving notice to the opposite party is that the other party should also be heard that basically law lot of law develops on the basic cardinal principles nobody can be condemned unheard yes it's another another issues so they say that wherever the law is that it's such such a situation principle the natural justice basically called out they say even during an Adam and Eve they've said that he never issued notice whether you ate an apple so that that development of laws goes back since ages and thank you to all the participants once again for connecting with us do join us do share our youtube channel as well as keep liking our facebook and instagram page thank you everyone stay safe stay blessed and thank you dr. Manoj once again