Section 9 of civil procedure code. Civil Procedure Code 2022-10-12
Section 9 of civil procedure code Rating:
7,9/10
1380
reviews
Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) of India deals with the jurisdiction of civil courts. It states that the jurisdiction of a civil court is determined by the value of the subject matter in dispute, the place where the cause of action arises, and the place where the defendant resides or carries on business.
Under this section, the value of the subject matter in dispute determines the jurisdiction of the court. For instance, if the value of the subject matter in dispute is less than INR 20,000, the jurisdiction would lie with the small causes court. If the value of the subject matter in dispute is between INR 20,000 and INR 50,000, the jurisdiction would lie with the district court. And if the value of the subject matter in dispute is more than INR 50,000, the jurisdiction would lie with the high court.
The place where the cause of action arises is another factor that determines the jurisdiction of the court. The cause of action refers to the event or set of circumstances that gives rise to a legal claim. For example, if the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of a particular court, that court will have the jurisdiction to hear the case.
Finally, the place where the defendant resides or carries on business is also a factor that determines the jurisdiction of the court. If the defendant resides or carries on business within the jurisdiction of a particular court, that court will have the jurisdiction to hear the case.
In summary, section 9 of the CPC determines the jurisdiction of civil courts in India based on the value of the subject matter in dispute, the place where the cause of action arises, and the place where the defendant resides or carries on business. It is an important provision that helps ensure that cases are heard by the appropriate court, and that justice is dispensed efficiently and effectively.
Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code
However, this would differ in cases of appeal as in the case of appeals there are statutory provisions that govern who may and who may not appeal, but that is not the case in the case of instituting suits. The Privy Council in Secretary of State v. And the churches in the Commonwealth are voluntary body organised on a consensual basis—their rights apart from statutes will be protected by the courts and their discipline enforced exactly as in the case of any other voluntary body whose existence is legally recognised. In the landmark case, Shankar Narayan Potti v. A right to take part in public worship either in a temple or of a deity while it is being taken out in procession is a civil right, cognizable by a civil court.
UPSC Mains Answer Writing Practice. The project seeks to understand several nuances of Section 9 in a comprehensive and analytical way. I, court and not civil court. Further, even if there is a claim of non-competence of the court to hear the particular claim, the court may still exercise jurisdiction for cases wherein statutory bodies or tribunals have heard cases beyond their jurisdiction. The dispute as to right of worship is one of a civil nature within the meaning of section 9 of the Code and a suit is maintainable for the vindication or determination of such a right.
It does not store any personal data. Suits barred on grounds of public policy: They are suits the cognizance of which is impliedly barred on the grounds of public or State policy. So, their scope is limited to the act provisions, and they cannot even decide if an act is going ultra vires. This is, however, not the case where payments are merely voluntary, and a suit does not lie to recover voluntary gratuities that may have been received by the usurper. But Yajman vritti creates a permanent relation, which is regarded as heritable property. The authors end by providing their own insight and comments on the section. The jurisdiction of civil court has been barred to challenge any question settled or decision made or matter dealt with by the competent authority under the Act.
Jurisdiction and Res-judicata Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code gives civil courts the power to try all the civil suits unless expressly barred. Â The Court should be expressly or impliedly barred:Â Expressly barred refers to when the legislation restricts the scope of jurisdiction of the civil courts from restricting to try a particular class of suit. The statute may specifically provide for ousting the jurisdiction of civil courts; even if there was no such specific exclusion, if it creates liability not existing before and gives a special and particular remedy for the aggrieved party, the remedy provided by it must be followed. If the requirements under Section 9 are satisfied for a particular case, no court can deny examining the matter in concern. However, according to the dictionary meaning S. The plaintiff was holding land belonging to Math. The appellant served notices under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, which says that no litigation may be brought against a government or public officer in his official position until a two-month notice period has passed.
Legal Provisions of Section 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.), India Free Sample
In exercising its rights, Maharashtra introduced Section 9A to the Civil Procedure Code. The High Court granted an appeal against this ruling, and the subordinate judge was told to decide the case on the merits. A suit, however, by one director against the other directors of a limited company to restrain the latter from preventing him from acting as such is maintainable. Each phrase of the doctrine approbates a duty of the Apex Court to apply its jurisdiction for the purpose of allocation of rights. Thus if the principal question in the suit is a caste question or a question relating to religious rites or ceremonies, the suit is not of a civil nature. The Code can be altered by state legislatures because it appears under Entry 13 of the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. You can click on this link and join:.
The concept of inherent jurisdiction (Section 9 Civil Procedure Code, 1908)
 The presumption of Jurisdiction should not be inferred until and unless a specific law established by the legislation debars Court from exercising its jurisdiction. What is the Civil Procedure Code? But for purposes of enforcing discipline within a church religious body may constitute a tribunal to determine whether its rules have been violated by any other members or not and what will be the consequence of that violation. State of Bombay, AIR 1965 SC 1942 at p. The mortgaged property was later on declared evacuee property and custodian sold it. The earlier part opens the door widely and the latter debars entry to only those which are expressly or impliedly barred. The suit is clearly permitted by section 54 new S. The court was instructed in the case of Shri Panch Nagar v.
Suits of Civil Nature: Section 9 Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Students of Lawsikho courses  regularly produce writing assignments, work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills. At the expiration of the order, the local law enforcement agency shall return possession of any surrendered firearm to the respondent, within five days after the expiration of the relinquishment order, unless the local law enforcement agency determines that 1 the firearm has been stolen, 2 the respondent is prohibited from possessing a firearm because the respondent is in any prohibited class for the possession of firearms, as defined in Chapter 2 commencing with Section 29800 and Chapter 3 commencing with f? Foreign Compensation Commission, 1969 1 All ER 208 HL ; Bata Shoe Co. Where Tax Recovery Officer had not proceeded to recover tax under the provisions of the I. There exists a wide difference between suits of civil nature and civil cases. The fact that there are emoluments of a non-gratuitous character payable out of the funds of the institution is relevant, though the absence thereof is not decisive. Four issues were framed by the city civil court, one of which challenged the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suit. Additionally, courts have opined that suits for temporary injunctions are not maintainable.
Section 9 Of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (civil Prakria Sahita 1908 Dhara 09) : Advocate Ashok Kumar Sahu (Mob: 9460795907) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Held that as that order had become final, hence, re-agitation of same issue before Labour Court was barred by res Judicata. The two explanations, one existing from inception and the latter added in 1976, bring out clearly the legislative intentions of extending operation of the section to such religious matters where right to property or office is involved irrespective of whether any fee is attached to the office or not. On April 30, 1950, May 22, 1950, October 24, 1950, and January 21, 1954, the government published a series of notifications. The suit was challenged by the corporation on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain the suit. Res Judicata not applicable on application for redemption of mortgage: Where application for redemption of mortgage had been dismissed by the Collector under Sections 11 and 12 of Redemption of Mortgage Punjab Act, 1913. In PMA Metropolitan vs.
Right to officiate as purohit and guru: A claim to officiate as the priest of the deity in a particular temple on the occasion of certain festivals for which the remuneration was payable by the temple is an office of a civil nature within section 9, C. The expansive nature of the section is demonstrated by use of phraseology both positive and negative. District Board, Agra; and 3 Indian Airlines Corporation v. Ubi jus ibi remedium is the well-known maxim. The right to celebrate the annual festival in a temple is a civil right. Marthoma 1995  In this case, the Supreme Court made a certain observation regarding Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Free Case Law On Order 9 Of The Civil Procedure Code 1908
Under section 43 of Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 13 of 1955 the decision of the collector with regard to possession of land is final. A man vritti, however, differs in this respect that the relation between a yajman and purohit is casual or temporary. The above contention was reaffirmed in the case of Shankar Narayanan v. In the year 2002, the Code of Civil Procedure was significantly amended. The CPC not only defines and amends but also consolidates the law of the civil procedure. As regards the religious offices where fees are appurtenant as of right, there is no dispute that a suit will lie against an intruder for a declaration that the- office is vested in the plaintiff.
