 act of the particular state. Hierarchy of courts will be shown in the act and which court will have power up to what pecuniary limits also will be stated in the particular civil courts act. For example, in our state the jurisdiction of the Munches court that is the lowest civil court is 10 lakhs. Beyond that it has to go before the sub court that is the next higher court. Likewise appellate jurisdiction is also mentioned. District courts will have jurisdiction pecuniary jurisdiction up to 20 lakhs to have appeals from other subordinate courts beyond 20 lakhs it is high court. Likewise it is then territorial jurisdiction is decided territorial limits of each court is fixed by the notification issued by the high court. The state will notify and accordingly the each officer judicial officer will know which are all the villages within his jurisdiction and it is there is no difficulty that is only a say just looking into the various aspects of the villages or panchayats or whatever it is and then decide. Jurisdiction of the subject matter over the subject matter is the most relevant thing and if a court has no jurisdiction to deal with a subject matter that means we can say that that court has no jurisdiction to deal with. A decree or order passed by a court without jurisdiction is invalid. Parties cannot confer jurisdiction on parties cannot agree all right we will have it the after the coming into force of the family courts act only the family courts will have jurisdiction over a matrimonial matters but if the parties agree all right we will have it before the munces court or district court that will not confer jurisdiction on that court parties cannot agree with the respective jurisdiction jurisdiction that court must have this is the basic principle. Now I will come to detailed discussion with to somewhat detailed discussion with respect to section 9 and if you want more detailed discussions on section 9 please see episodes 99 to 105 of my youtube channel www.justicekatisangaran.com slash ctc you will get it now with respect to section 9 just I thought of reading it. Courts to try all suits unless barred the court shall subject to the provisions here in contain have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature accepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. That is two things are the suits of a civil nature then accept accepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. What is express barred? A particular special statute may provide that in respect of matters mentioned this act the tribunal constituted under that or the court constituted under that statute will have exclusive jurisdiction and the civil court will have no jurisdiction that is an ouster clause if that is there there is no not much to get there may be some special statute which may provide for certain remedies certain renders that is a reliefs can be had from the authorities provided under the special statute but if the special statute may not provide for an ouster clause it will not say that the civil court will have no jurisdiction then what will happen impliedly barred whether it is impliedly barred or not that is a question then there are different types of statute which I will deal with it and I will deal with it some of the decisions also which will throw light on it then with respect to the explanation a suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of civil nature notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of questions as to religious rights or sermons that means it indirectly means that if the suit relates to only religious rights or ceremonies unconnected with the right to an office or a good property then the civil court will not undertake civil court will say that the civil court has no jurisdiction to deal with that matter if it is only religious rights or ceremonies then explanation two for the purpose of this section it is immaterial whether or not any fees are attached to the office referred to in explanation one or whether or not such office is attached to a particular place that makes it position very clear now the other provisions section 15 provides that the suits shall be instituted in the court of the lowest grade competent to try it that is with respect to the pecuniary jurisdiction which I said the respective civil court's act of the state will deal with it that is every suit shall be instituted in a court of the lowest grade competent to try 16 suits to be instituted were subject matters it is on a reading of it it is very clear which are all the suits suits for recovery of immoral property partition for closure determination of any other right or interest in immoral property compensation for wrong in respect of immoral property for recovery of immoral property actually under the state shall be instituted in the court within the local jurisdiction of host jurisdiction the property is secured there is no difficulty with respect to immoral property it shall be the court within whose within whose limits the property is situated then 17 suits for immoral property situated within the jurisdiction of different courts suppose a property several properties items of properties are to be partition they are situated within the jurisdiction of different courts different districts all these courts have jurisdiction concurrent jurisdiction suit can be filed in any of those courts 18 place of institutional suit or local limits of jurisdiction are uncertain it may happen sometimes and but that uncertainty is there the court is satisfied that there is ground for uncertainty but caught a statement to the defect and thereafter proceed to entertain and dispose of the suit that is self-explanatory on a reading of 18 it is clear 19 suits for compensation for wrongs to persons or mobiles 20 other suits which are not mentioned elsewhere cause of action arises personally works for gain carries on business all these aspects then 21 objections as to jurisdiction objection as to jurisdiction I will read subsection 1 same wording in subsection 2 and 3 with respect to different types of jurisdiction subsection 1 deals with the territorial jurisdiction subsection 2 deals with the pecuniary jurisdiction and subsection 3 deals with execution procedures executing court now subsection 1 says that no objection as to the place of swing that is with respect to territorial jurisdiction shall be allowed by any appellate or revision code unless such objection was taken in the court of the first instance and 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 so such an objection can be waived pecuniary jurisdiction territorial jurisdiction all those aspects the objection has to be taken at the earliest possible opportunity and when issues are settled at or before such settlement of issues and even if that defect is there and the trial went on decision is taken still all these aspects are not only enough plus one more thing that there was a consequent failure of justice that aspect also has to be shown then only the appellate or revision code will entertain an objection though raised at the trial stage at the appropriate time still unless there is a consequent failure of justice the appellate or revision code will not entertain that objection in the appeal or revision that is with respect to pecuniary jurisdiction subsection 2 same word execution subsection 2 but section 21 does not deal with subject matter jurisdiction subject matter jurisdiction if it lacks jurisdiction it cannot be conferred by the consent of pecuniary as well as territorial jurisdiction can be based on waiver that objection if not taken at the appropriate time cannot be allowed to be taken plus that objection though taken at the appropriate time still the by the trial of that suit there was a consequent failure of justice decision is see after the decision is rendered it can be said that there was a consequent failure of justice unless that is also true the appellate or revision code will not interfere but so far as the subject matter jurisdiction is concerned if there is a lack of jurisdiction complete lack of jurisdiction for example a suit for dissolution of marriage is filed in the nunsis court or in the sub court or district court subordinate after the coming into force of the family courts act it has to be filed before the family court but nobody raised any objection all parties agreed that we have no objection that will not confer jurisdiction a decree or order passed by a court without jurisdiction is an analogy and the principle is that if a decree is null and void its invalidity can be set up wherever and whenever it is sought to be raised in collateral proceedings or even in execution proceedings suppose there is a proceeding before a civil court which really has no jurisdiction nobody raised that objection nevertheless nobody raised any objection but the civil court decreed this when it is put in execution the respondent defendant raises a connection that the decree is annulled even though he participated in the trial still he can say that it is null and void because it is passed by a court without jurisdiction a decree or order passed by a court without jurisdiction is an annuity the agreement between the parties will not confer jurisdiction waiver will not confer jurisdiction that is a difference now we will come back to section 9 section 9 it can be very easily explained by referring to some of the decisions there are some principles which have been laid down about 100 years ago those principles apply even now what are those principles we have to see one i will cite those decisions that will be easier i i will cite those decisions i will cite premier automobiles case premier automobiles aya 1975 supreme court 2238 2238 the premier automobiles limited versus kamlakar shantaram vatke you may see paragraph 10 last i will read a small portion that makes the position clear there are three classes of cases in which a liability may be established by statute there is that class where there is a liability existing at common land and which is only reenacted by a statute with a special form of remedy there unless the statute contains words necessary excluding common law remedy the plaintiff has his election or proceeding either under the statute or at common law then there is a second class which consists of those cases in which a statute has created a library but has given no special remedy for it there the party may adopt an action of debt or other remedy at common law to enforce it the third class is where the statute creates a liability not existing at common and gives also a particular remedy for enforcement with respect to that class it has always been held that the party must adopt the form of remedy given by a statute i will explain this a special statute is there a right is mentioned there a remedy is mentioned a court or tribunal is also mentioned for address of grievances that right is a common law right it is available even otherwise but a special form is provided a special procedure is provided but there is also a provision which is called ouster clause with respect to matters mentioned in this statute the civil court will have no jurisdiction that is an ouster clause in which case the civil court will not get jurisdiction but there may be still other classes of cases where a common law right is recognized in a special statute a special remedy is also provided but there is no ouster clause the decision say that in which case unless it is a complete court in itself remedies are optional at the option of the litigant plenty there may be cases where a common law common law right is recognized in a special statute a special remedy is provided special procedure is provided even though there is no ouster clause it is so clear that it is a complete court by itself in which case the civil courts will lack jurisdiction there may be cases where for the first time a special right is created by a special statute till then that right is not there a special right is created a special remedy is also provided in which case even though there is no ouster clause the civil court will have no jurisdiction these are all the different classes of cases and principles which are mentioned over the years and followed over the years by the supreme court by the provost council various psychos and supreme court there is no change where is it provided is it provided in the cpc no is it provided in any other statute no these are all the principles that settled by judicial pronouncements therefore there may be landforms or place relations which provide for special almost every state has landforms place a special trigonal is constituted there is some statute which may provide for an ouster clause the civil court will have no jurisdiction with respect to matters for which provision is made in this act in which case there is a clear ouster of jurisdiction some of the powers of the civil courts intervention by the civil court is also saved in some case in which case the civil court will have jurisdiction only in respect of those such therefore whenever we file a suit we have to have a reference to the statute under which this right is sought to be established remedy is sought to be claimed and the procedure is sought to be followed in which case we have to see whether there is an ouster of the jurisdiction civil court if there is nothing and these principles will apply if it is a common law right and there is ouster clause you have to abide by that ouster clause you have to go before the tribunal constituted under that special statute if it is there may be cases where some of the appellate remedies are provided before the civil court even under the special statute that we can follow so the question is whether the civil court's jurisdiction is ouster now along with explanation one and other principles which i mentioned i will also cite about five or six constitution bench decisions when we read the commentaries it will be clear how important section nine is and how over the years these questions are referred to and decided now i will refer to a decision of the supreme court in sinna ramanaja jia versus ranga ramanaja jia sinna ramanaja jia versus ranga ramanaja jia that is in a year 1961 supreme court one seven two zero one seven two zero there was that happened in tamil now there is a temple complex big compound if my memory is correct there are more than 20 25 shrines in that compound these temples are managed by jia families there are several jia families there were litigations over the years several litigations several rounds of litigations but these jia families rights to manage the temple is beyond question that is ember umanar temple ember umanar temple there is a neighboring temple called atinathalwar temple this jia of ember umanar temple has got certain special rights privileges not rights privileges this ember umanar jia went to atinathalwar temple and he claimed certain privileges what are those privileges to receive the tulasi thirtha first in point of time before it is being given to any other worshipper he must get it why he is the jia of ember umanar temple that was denied and there was a dispute which went up to supreme court that is the point design and in that case please see paragraph 13 14 23 mainly there are other discussions in other paragraphs also but see mainly for our purpose these principles have been mentioned there now i will read a few sentences even if thirtha is given now but no for convenience of reference we may summarize the law on the subject one a suit for declaration of religious honors and privileges simplicity will not lie in a civil but two but a suit to establish one's right to an office in a temple or to honors and privileges attached to said office as its remuneration or prerequisites is maintainable in a civil court three the essential condition for the existence of an office is that the holder of the alleged office shall be under a legal obligation to discharge the duties attached to said office and for the non-observance of which he may be visited with penalties for so judged there cannot be an independent office of thirtha for a thirtha has no obligatory duties to perform etc etc even if thirtha is given or five even if thirtha is given or honors are shown in a particular order to a person holding an office it does not necessarily follow that the said honors are part of remuneration attached to office but it is a question of fact to be ascertained on the evidence in each case then these principles have been set out is clear from the said allegations that the claim of the plaintiff to ordinary and special owners of atinathalwar temple is based on his capacity as the office holder of anathanaikar and trustee of emberu manatham a different temple there is no irrigation etc etc then it is decided against him that it was held that it is only religious privileges for that the civil court cannot be approached the civil court will have no jurisdiction to entertain such a suit now next decision is shabram ala case it is not final 2020 volume 2 scc 1 2020 volume 2 scc 1 kandarra rajee viru kandarra rajee viru versus indian young lawyers association there was difference of opinion among them they're just constituting the bench the chief justice randan gogai justice karvelkar justice rowington mariman justice chandra jyot and justice indu malhotra separate judgments were written and paragraph 6789 maykai gbc chief justice referred to paragraph his judgment paragraph 129 held that the review petition should be kept pending till the decision by a large events descending judgment by justice mariman paragraph 10 to 20 arguments para 20 onwards it is not finally decided it will go before the larger bench but one of the questions is whether it is only then in paragraph seven it is said that there is some conflict between two decisions on this point next is a year 1995 2001 this is the famous malangra church case in kerala there are several churches the malangra church christian church two groups catholicos group and sorry patria group difference of opinion different churches very rich people churches have different items of properties and very valuable properties are there are disputes several years more than a century ago disputes started and in 2095 this was settled but it was not settled even there are even now it continues the disputes continue and unrest continues what is the point decided here a bishop was excommuny i christian was excommunicated from the church excommunication means you are not a member of the church declare that you are not a member of the church whether that excommunication can give rise to a litigation before the civil court is the question whether the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain such complaining about excommunication what is discussed in paragraph 27 28 29 38 46 and 47 when a person is excommunicated from the church it is visited with several consequences he will not get any service from the church for marriage and death and all those things there will be there will be so many disqualifications paragraph 47 one of the effects such a action is that the person concerned is deprived of the right to worship under our constitution it is a fundamental right any interference with it or its deprivation can be challenged in a court of law even in england the courts extend protection regarding ecclesiastical matters if they affect the right as is clear from paragraph 3 37 of alzbury's laws of england fourth edition etc then in para 29 last sentence big paragraph the section would therefore be available in every case where the dispute has the characteristic characteristic of affecting one's rights which are not only civil but of civil nature because of the length of the paragraphs it is not possible to read then what is religion etc all those things are excommunication in religious order and that too of a spiritual head entail serious consequences both religious and civil this is what is held in paragraph 46 next 75 supreme court which I mentioned premier automobiles paragraph 31 para 10 iron paragraph 31 also premier automobiles I first cited and paragraph 31 then another decision that is a kerala decision but it is unique nowhere else in India that question arose or it is decided arose probably arose but not seen decided in any larger that is a among Muslims in kerala particularly in malawar area northern kerala after 1970s there arose various disputes among different factions sunnis and vijaits are the two groups both originally were sunnis but a faction was formed which is called mujahids which later is called naduatul mujahidin kerala naduatul mujahidin knm and again there was split we are not concerned now according to sunnis the worship friday congregation in every juma mosque there are juma mosques and other mosques in every juma mosque there will be juma prayer at at noon on every friday it is called friday juma prayer that is congregational prayer so the sunnis say that this should be in arabic arabic alone because it is a prayer whereas mujahid say that this is only not a prayer some components may be prayers but mainly it is an advice to the congregation to lead a virtuous life it is not the same thing in all different mosques in one mosque itself this friday it may be one thing another friday another subject may be there different subjects will come and therefore it is only a speech an advice to the congregation to lead a virtuous life is a dispute and then sunnis say since it is a prayer it can be only in arabic whereas mujahid say it is an advice to the congregation therefore it can be in any language known to the congregation this is the dispute cracks of the dispute and hundreds of cases arose in malaba that is northern part of kerala came before courts then a question arose whether the civil court will have jurisdiction to decide such cases and justice abdelgafu decided in a year 2000 kerala a year 2000 kerala 329 muhammad versus moideen haji muhammad versus moideen haji and on friday known prayer this called kutubah what is that kutubah there are four main ingredients hamd salat wasiyat duvah hamd is prayer to the almighty salat is that is salutation to the prophet muhammad then wasiyat is the disputed part according to sunnis it is a prayer but according to mujahid it is only an advice duvah is the prayer so what the kerala he called said hamd salat and duvah can be in arabic arabic alone which is a prayer but so far as wasiyat is concerned in being an advice to the congregation it wants to a speech therefore it can be in any language known to know known to the congregation that is kutubah k-h-u-t-h-u-b-a during juma prayer then it is said the civil courts have jurisdiction to entertain suits of for violation of fundamental rights under article 25 and 26 of the constitution of india the freedom guaranteed in article 25 to practice religion is exercised primarily with religious worship ritual and observation and religious practices are as much a part of religion as religious faith or doctrine therefore the finding of the lower upended court then the suit as framed was maintained cannot be said to be incorrect that finding is upheld and the preliminary objection raised by the responders defendants is over this is what is said so that the civil courts will have jurisdiction is what is held that is kutubah then another constitution bench case a year 1969 a year 19 i am not citing all the decisions i am citing very important decisions for your convenience a year 1969 supreme court 78 five years doula by versus state of mp doula by versus state of mp you may say paragraph 32 paragraph 32 main discussion where the statute gives a finality to the orders of special trial owners the civil courts jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the civil courts would normally do in a suit such provision however does not exclude those cases where the provisions of a particular act have not been applied or with the statutory tribunal has not adopted acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure to where there is an express bar of the jurisdiction of the court an examination of the scheme of the particular act to find the adequacy or sufficiency of the remedies provided may be relevant but is not decisive where there is no express exclusion the examination of the remedies and the scheme of the particular act to find out the intent man becomes necessary and the result of the inquiry may be decides various principles have been set out please see doula by skis next is a year 1965 supreme court a year 1965 supreme court and meanwhile you may also see before that 1995 SCC 1995 SCC 4 6 0 venka midi venka mahmidhi venka mahmidhi venkata subbarav venkata subbarav versus chattlapalli seetha rama retha renga naayagamma renga naayagamma venkata mahmidhi venkata subbarav versus chattlapalli seetha rama retha renga naayagamma is a case please see the discussion paragraph 15 big very very long paragraph then another constitution larger than the decision a year 1965 supreme court 1942 65 supreme court 1942 kamala mills limited versus state of bomb this is being cited in almost all the other decisions so supreme court kamala mills is referred to doula by is referred to all these important decisions are being referred to in almost all the judgments dealing with these aspects kamala kamala mills versus state of bombay please see paragraph 13 paragraph 32 i am referring to these paragraphs for convenience not that there is no discussion other paragraphs but immediately you can lay your hands on these paragraphs to find the principle that is why i am referring next another constitution by the decision a year 1966 supreme court 249 66 supreme court 249 vaharath kalabandar vaharath kalabandar private limited versus municipal committee municipal committee dhaman go on dh m a n g a o n again the principles are mentioned in paragraph 29 but they say i will read a small portion further one of the corollaries flowing from the principle is that principle that the constitution is the fundamental law of the land is that the normal remedy of a suit will be available for obtaining redress against the violation of a constitutional portion the court must therefore lean in favor of construing a law in such a way as not to take away this right and render illusory the protection afforded by the constitution so whatever be the position with respect to section 67 of the indian contacts act so far as section 83 3 of the act is concerned we find it reasonably possible to construe it as not depriving a person of his right to obtain redress from a civil court in respect of an amount recovered from him as tax in violation of article 2 services that was the question tax was collected in violation of article 2 services whether he can approach us will go to us the question which was considered there these principles have been set out in detail various decisions have been referred to a full discussion is the that is by constitution bends another decision by four judges in the supreme court a year 1953 supreme court 1616 measures batia cooperative batia cooperative housing society limited versus dc patel civil court has inherent power to decide the question of its own jurisdiction although as a result of its inquiry it may turn out that it has no jurisdiction so a person raises a question that the civil court has no jurisdiction who is to decide it is a civil court and as a result of the decision sometimes the result will be that the civil court will have no jurisdiction no matter even then that is to be decided by the civil court it may turn out that it has no jurisdiction over the still the crucial point therefore in civil court to entertain the suit paragraph 7 towards last the crucial point therefore in order to determine the question of jurisdiction of the city civil court to entertain the suit is to ascertain whether in view of section 4 of the act the particular statute is referred to the act applies to the premises at all if it does the city civil court has no jurisdiction but if it does not then it has jurisdiction the question at once arises as to who is to decide this point in controversy it is well settled that a civil court has inherent power to decide the question of its own jurisdiction although as a result of the inquiry it may turn out that it has no jurisdiction still yes 1997 1 1997 1 SCC 68 parallel citation AER 97 Supreme Court 2364 MP electricity board Jabalpur versus Messers BJR timber company that is transmission of line without obtaining consent electricity act provides for ouster but this transmission line was laid without obtaining consent and it was held that ends not to be treated as having acted in accordance with the provisions of the Indian electricity act to take shelter under those provisions civil suit is not barred is what is held therefore according to the I code the remedy of the plenty was not to take the course under the provisions of the act but to file a civil suit for compensation it is well settled para 8 it is well settled that exclusions jurisdiction of the civil court cannot be readily inferred this is another principle which is said in almost all decisions dealing with section exclusion of jurisdiction of civil court cannot be readily put court must be satisfied that just exclusion of jurisdiction of the civil court cannot be readily inferred and the normal rule is that civil courts will have jurisdiction to try all sorts of a civil nature except those of which cognizance by them is either expressly or in widely barred then other principles which we have already discussed that is the various tests when it is final whether it is a common law right and all those things then AER 1966 Supreme Court 66 Supreme Court 8 9 3 another constitution Ram Surabh and others Ram Surabh and others versus Chikar Chan and another run control illustrations discussions you will get in paragraph 12 30 detailed discussion para 19 I am sorry yes not para 19 paragraph 12 and 30 detailed discussion all these principles have been mentioned next 1991 Supplemental 1 SCC 167 AER citation AER 1991 Supreme Court 435 Guru Bhat Singh versus the financial commissioner and another that was under the displaced persons compensation rehabilitation act 1954 that is mainly in the border areas between Pakistan and India this there are two acts with respect to that that is evacuee property there the question was whether the jurisdiction civil court is hosted discussion in paragraph 19 preference is made to 1940 decision of the public council AER 66 State of Kerala versus Ramaswamy Ayer and sans all these are referred to then another constitution when the decision in AER 1964 Supreme Court 1964 Supreme Court 322 firm of firm of illuri ILL URI Subhaya Chetty and sans versus State of Andhra Police that is under the general safe tax act discussion paragraph 7 9 there in paragraph 9 I will read two sentences that is again very important the fact that the order passed by the assessing authority may in fact be incorrect or wrong does not affect the position of law that position in law that the send order has been passed by an appropriate authority and the assessment made by it must be treated as made under the act special study whether or not an assessment has been made under this act will not depend on the correctness or the accuracy of the order passed by the assessing authority that is a point one of the points decided then 2004 7 SCC 391 tenancy laws Lakshma Paa Bhima Paa Lakshma Paa Bhima Paa versus Hanum Hanum Appa Shettappa and others that is from Karnataka next I will cite a Kerala 5 Zeds bench decision a year 2003 Kerala 312 the question was to us refer to the larger bench was whether under the Christian law whether the father has got a duty to maintain his minor son or in other words whether the minor has got a right to get maintenance from his father there is no law on the point whether the civil court will have jurisdiction all these questions were considered in that judgment these are some of the important decisions then I will refer to some of the other some other points in the sense that if a court passes a decree without jurisdiction territorial jurisdiction pecuniary jurisdiction and subject matter what is the difference between the three territorial jurisdiction under the heading you may see a year 1996 Supreme Court 987 Church of South India Trust Association versus Telugu Church Council the question considered was and section 11 along with this was considered question post is section 11 envisages that the judgment in a former suit would operate as restudicator in the court which decided the set suit was competent to try the same by virtue of its pecuniary jurisdiction and the subject matter to try the subsequent and it is not necessary that the set court should have had territorial jurisdiction section 11 of CPC which says that in a court which is competent to try the subsequent such an expression is that court competent to try such substance explanation 8 refers to the court of limited jurisdiction that we are not on that aspect at all but discussion Supreme Court considered section 21 explanation 7 and 8 of section 11 and section 13 CPC and held in such circumstances I will read in the words of Supreme Court in such circumstances it would be rather incongruous to read a limitation in the applicability of the set principle by constuing the competence of the court to mean that the court which has decided the earlier must have territorial jurisdiction to try the subsequent the argument was that the court the court competent to try the subsequent that refers to territorial jurisdiction as well therefore if the two suits are in different territorial jurisdictions section 11 will not apply is the argument such a construction would be running against the trend of the development of law in this field and then it is further held if it is held that for the purpose of section 11 the competence of the court which has decided the earlier suit also postulates the set court having territorial jurisdiction to try the subsequent suit it would mean that the judgment of a court in India which was competent to try the earlier suit would not operate as restudicated in a subsequent suit between because the court which decided the earlier suit did not have territorial jurisdiction to try the subsequent suit but the same judgment if rendered by a foreign court would be conclusive in an Indian court in a subsequent suit this anomaly would be avoided if competence of the court which has decided the earlier suit for the purpose of section 11 is construed as not referring to territorial jurisdiction how the Supreme Court approached these questions if you say that the judgment passed by a court court a or court x is not binding on the parties in a subsequent suit because in court y because the y court in a court which is competent in a suit which is competent which suit was former suit was pending in a court which is competent to try the subsequent suit is the court competent to try the subsequent suit no because it has no territorial jurisdiction this is the argument and therefore it will not operate as restudicated Supreme Court asks you say that because x and y courts have different territorial jurisdiction that will not operate as restudicated as your argument if that is so what about a foreign judgment a judgment passed by a foreign court will be binding on the courts in India if the conditions under section 13 of the CPC are complied or satisfied but a a degree passed by a court in India will not be binding because of territorial jurisdiction that cannot be the law and therefore it is said that so far as territorial jurisdiction is concerned it is a different aspect then pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction put together please see 1990 volume 1 SCC 193 193 name of the case Sushil Kumar Mehta versus Govindram Horan a decree passed in the words of Supreme Court a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction over the subject matter or on other grounds which goes to the root of its exercise of jurisdiction lacks inherent jurisdiction it is a quorum non-judice a decree passed by such a court is a nullity and non-est its invalidity can be set up whenever it is sought to be enforced or is acted upon as a foundation for a right even at the stage of execution or in collateral proceedings the defect of jurisdiction strikes at the authority of the court to pass a decree which cannot be cured by consent or waiver of the party if such a court has jurisdiction but there is defect in its exercise which does not go to the root of its authority such as defect like pecuniary or territorial could be waived by the party they could be corrected by the appropriate plea at the inception section 21 or in the appellate or revision forum provided law programs so territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction objection has to be taken going by section 21 at the earliest possible opportunity and in cases where issues are settled at all before such settlement even if it is raised at the appropriate time but the court neglects court declines to accept that condition and it is decided and you are challenging it before the appellate or resolution at all cook even the defect in territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction is seen evident still the court need not interfere unless there is a failure of justice but so far as jurisdiction over the subject matter is concerned even if the party is agree positively or by waiver still it is a matter with which is without jurisdiction it is a nullity its invalidity can be set up wherever and whenever it is sought to be enforced even in collateral proceedings and even in executions this is a well settled principles right from 1950 even till now there is no change on that one then another area decision on question of jurisdiction or a pure question of law decision on a pure question of jurisdiction pure question of law unrelated to facts or rights of law decision on a pure question of law unrelated to the rights of law or on the jurisdiction of the court it will not operate as rest of the gate a very interesting case which came before the supreme court isabella johnson versus m a suicide isabella johnson versus m a suicide a year 1991 supreme court 1993 what was that landlord landlord filer and control petition before the run control court then the tenant raised a condention that the run control court has no jurisdiction it has to be filed before the civil court the run control court accepted that condention and held that the party has to approach the civil court then the petitioner approached that civil court he filed a suit at that time the same defendant he said no no no the civil court has no jurisdiction only the run control court has jurisdiction the subordinate civil courts all of the negative that please you cannot blow hot and cold at the same time and you raise this condention if you was accepted now you are raising the opposite conduction it cannot be permitted is the view taken by the subordinate civil courts but the high court said that it is a pure question of law unrelated to facts and it is affecting the jurisdiction of the court so it will not operate as rest of the gate that was accepted by this group a decision on the question of jurisdiction of the court or a pure question of law unrelated to the rights of parts to a previous suit is not restudicated in the subsequent suit a court which has no jurisdiction cannot be conferred with the jurisdiction by applying the principle of restudication it is well settled that there can be no estoppel on a pure question of law and in this case the question of jurisdiction is a pure question of law we have seen that the consent or waiver will not confer jurisdiction it is also said in Isabella Johnson's case that that there is a decision of the civil court in a previous litigation he is not a ground to confer jurisdiction on a court which really it does not have is the principle different shades of meaning and in that judgment in Isabella Johnson you may see the decision of the Supreme Court in Mathura Prasad Mathura Prasad Sarju Jaiswal Baju Jaiswal Baju Jaiswal and others versus dosi by etc etc AER 1971 Supreme Court 2355 and 1990 Volume 1 SCC 193 Sushil Kumar Mehta which we have referred to earlier were referred to and followed and it was held by the Supreme Court that the decision in Avadhar Singh and others versus Jagith Singh and another 1979 4 SCC 83 by two judges did not take note of the three judge decision in Madhura Prasad and therefore Avadhar Singh is not good luck Isabella Johnson's case two judges they refer to Madhura Prasad they refer to Sushil Kumar Mehta and then they refer to Avadhar Singh and said Avadhar Singh which is a decision rented by two judges they did not follow the view taken by the three judge bench decision in Mathura Prasad and therefore that decision Avadhar Singh is not good luck what was held in Avadhar Singh in Avadhar Singh it was held that the principle of Rasudhiketa is applicable to an erroneous decision on jurisdiction in Isabella Johnson's case the Supreme Court held that Avadhar Singh is not good luck so please see that distinction also then another decision Madhura Prasad three judge bench decision principle have been stated in very detail then another decision a year 1965 supreme court one three two five three judges Chittwiri Subbanna Chittwiri Subbanna versus Kadapa Subbanna and others pure question of law non-dependent on the determination of any question of fact should be allowed to be raised for the first time in the grounds of appeal by the appellate court such a pure question of law are allowed for the first time at later stages also order 20 rule 11 to see that is made profits question was discussed it's a pure question of law stands on a different footing unconnected with the rights of parties unconnected with the funds then if it is a pure question of law even it is a decision is rendered on a pure question of law or on a question of jurisdiction unconnected with the rights of parties then it will not operate as Rasudhiketa between the parties these line of decisions also it is to be remembered along with this now I think with that Mr. Vikas we can close it we started late because of some technical problem but started at 40 now it is one hour five minutes one hour ten minutes maximum so that we can close it we can have an interactive session yes sir yes this is by K. Senghla whether the provisions under section 20 CPC can also apply for determining the jurisdiction in a motor vehicle accidents claims case 20 motor vehicles motor vehicle doesn't say any jurisdiction it says it can be filed anywhere it says that vehicles act I'm not very no it is a social legislation it says you can file anywhere yes whether a court has a court has a jurisdiction or not has to be decided what reference to the initial assumption of jurisdiction what are the various factors to decide jurisdictional issue of a civil court and various limitations to it that is the civil courts jurisdiction cannot be out of civil courts jurisdiction cannot be readily for it must be specifically found by the court that it is either expressly or implied otherwise the civil court will have when there is a civil right and a remedy is also provided it is a civil court which has to do it unless the civil court's jurisdiction is ousted either expressly or by necessary implication yes i'm just checking out we here we don't have i'm just checking it on the youtube also we don't have sir offense occurred that is forgery the government record at next place and victim of crime who affected by force crime resides at by place comes to know about the offense at by place itself complain can be filed slash lost at which place y or x it is not civil it is criminal i cannot straight away answer because that may go wrong it's fine it's fine and so what we have tentatively planned that it should be one hour fifteen minutes by including the questions also yes that is a timeline fixed by you that is why i i i complied with it no sir only the issue is that people in tend to understand what what can be done and at what point of time it can be taken up that's the only concern so tomorrow friends the session would be on arrest chapter five of the court of criminal procedure by sundar mohan and advocate and also a resource person at the Tamil Nadu judicial academy everyone stay safe stay blessed and so we are always grateful that you are always willing to share your knowledge it's always a pleasure hearing you it's quite soothing to the mind to understand all those issues thank you thank you i'm just i'm sorry i'm says i say sorry for the inconvenience post at the end they say that god's delays are not but it's thank you thank you