Institution of suits

 Section 26
 Order 4, 7, 19
 Stages of suit

Section 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) in India deals with the institution of suits. It
reads as follows:

1. Institution of suits: Every suit shall be instituted by the presentation of a plaint or in

such other manner as may be prescribed. A suit is typically instituted by the
presentation of a plaint. A plaint is a formal written complaint or statement of claim
presented by the plaintiff. It must contain details of the facts of the case, the cause of
action, and the relief or remedy sought from the court.
2. Proof of Facts by Affidavit: In every plaint, facts shall be proved by affidavit as
prescribed under Order VI of Rule 15A. The section also stipulates that the facts
contained in the plaint must be substantiated by an affidavit. An affidavit is a written
statement confirmed by oath or affirmation, used as evidence in court. This requirement
aims to ensure that the facts presented in the plaint are verified and sworn to be true by
the plaintiff or the person making the affidavit.

Order 4: Institution of Suits

This rule specifies the procedure for the institution of suits.
Rule 1. Suit to be commenced by plaint: Every suit shall be instituted by presenting a plaint to
the court or such officer as it appoints in this behalf.
Rule 2. Register of Suits: The court or the designated officer shall maintain a register of all suits
instituted.
Order 7: Plaint
Order 7 outlines the requirements and contents of a plaint.
Rule 1: Particulars to be contained in a plaint:
 The name of the court in which the suit is brought.
 The name, description, and place of residence of the plaintiff.
 The name, description, and place of residence of the defendant, so far as they can be
ascertained.
 Where the plaintiff or the defendant is a minor or a person of unsound mind, a
statement to that effect.
 The facts constituting the cause of action and when it arose.
  The facts showing that the court has jurisdiction.
 The relief which the plaintiff claims.
 Where the plaintiff has allowed a set-off or relinquished a portion of his claim, the
amount so allowed or relinquished.
 A statement of the value of the subject matter of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction
and of court fees, so far as the case admits.
Rule 2: In money suits, the plaintiff should state the precise amount claimed, except where it is
difficult to determine the exact amount due.
Rule 3: Where the subject matter of the suit is immovable property, the plaint shall contain a
description of the property sufficient to identify it.
Rule 4: Where the plaintiff sues in a representative capacity, the plaint should show that he has
taken the necessary steps to enable him to sue in that capacity.
Rule 5: The plaint shall show the defendant's interest in the subject matter of the suit and his
liability to be sued.
Rule 6: The plaint should state the grounds upon which the exemption from the law of
limitation is claimed, if applicable.
Rule 7: Every plaint shall specifically state the relief which the plaintiff claims, either simply or in
the alternative.
Rule 8: Relief founded on separate grounds shall be stated separately and distinctly.
Rule 9: Procedure on admitting plaint:
 The plaint shall be examined to ensure it complies with the rules.
 If the plaint is found to be defective, the court may allow time to the plaintiff to rectify
the defect.
 If the plaintiff fails to correct the defect within the given time, the court may reject the
plaint.
Rule 10: Return of plaint:
 The court shall return a plaint to be presented to the proper court if it is filed in the
wrong court.
 The judge shall endorse the date of presentation and return on the plaint.
Rule 11: Rejection of plaint:
  The court shall reject a plaint where it does not disclose a cause of action, where the
relief claimed is undervalued, where the suit appears to be barred by law, or if it is not
properly signed and verified.
Rule 12: Procedure on rejecting plaint:
 The court shall record an order to that effect with the reasons for such order.
Rule 13: Where rejection of plaint does not preclude the presentation of a fresh plaint in
respect of the same cause of action.
Order 7 ensures that the plaint contains all necessary details to inform the defendant about the
nature and grounds of the claim and to establish the court's jurisdiction.
Order 19: Affidavits
Order 19 outlines the procedure related to affidavits.
Rule 1: Power to order any point to be proved by affidavit:
 Any court may at any time for sufficient reason order that any particular fact or facts
may be proved by affidavit or that the affidavit of any witness may be read at the
hearing on such conditions as the court thinks reasonable.
Rule 2: Power to order attendance of deponent for cross-examination:
 Upon any application evidence may be given by affidavit, but the court may, at the
instance of either party, order the attendance for cross-examination of the deponent. In
such case, the evidence of the deponent shall not be used unless he appears for cross-
examination.
Rule 3: Matters to which affidavits shall be confined:
 Affidavits shall be confined to such facts as the deponent is able to prove from his own
knowledge, except on interlocutory applications, on which statements of his belief may
be admitted, provided that the grounds thereof are stated.
Order 19 deals with the use of affidavits in court proceedings, ensuring that they are used
appropriately and that there are provisions for cross-examination if necessary.

Section 10 and 11
Section: 10 deals with the doctrine of res sub-judice and section-11 deals with the doctrine of
res judicata. Section 10 provides the rule with regard to stay of suits where things are under
consideration or pending adjudication by a court. On the other hand section 11 provides the
rule relates to a matter already adjudicated. It bars the trial of a suit or an issue in which the
matter directly and substantially in issue has been adjudicated upon in a former suit. Sections
10 and 11 are mandatory.
Res sub-judice
Subjudice in latin means 'under judgment'. It denotes that a matter or case is being considered
by court or judge. When two or more cases are filed between the same parties on the same
subject matter, the competent court has power to stay proceeding. However, the doctrine of
res-subjudice means stay of suit. This Code provides rules for the civil court in respect of the
doctrine of res subjudice. This rule applies to trial of a suit not the institution thereof.
Conditions of Res sub-judice
This section can only be applied if the following condition are satisfied. These are:
 Two suits: Previously Instituted and Subsequently Instituted.
 Matter in issue in subsequent suit: directly and substantially in issue in previous suit.
 Both suits between same parties or their representatives.
 Previous suit must be pending in same or in any other court.
 The court dealing with previously instituted suit competent to grant relief claimed in
subsequent suit
 Parties litigating under the same titles in both the suit.

Example
Wife A filed a suit for separation of conjugal life and custody of minor child against husband B.
Subsequently husband B claimed custody of minor child by filling another suit against wife B.
The second suit liable to stay under section 10 of CPC, 1908.

When not apply

Court cannot apply this section where point at issues are distinct and different, or even where
there are some issues in common and others are different issues. This section is also not
applicable between the suits where although the parties are same, but the issues are not the
same.
Purposes of Res sub-judice
The section -10 intends to protect a person from multiplicity of proceedings and to avoid a
conflict of decisions. It also protects the litigant people from unnecessary harassment. It also
aims to avert (avoid) inconvenience to the parties and gives effect to the rule of res judicata.

Purpose in short
 Avoid wasting Court Resources.
  Avoid Conflicting decisions.
 Avoid multiplicity of suit.
What is res-judicata?
Under section 11 of the Code of Civil procedure 1908, provision has been made regarding res-
judicata. According to this, no court will try any suit or any issue in the suit in which that issue
has been decided between that parties to the suit or any other parties under them for whose
rights the suit has already been filed in any court of competent jurisdiction, heard and decided
by that court or any point has been raised in the subsequent suit which has already been heard
and decided by any court of competent jurisdiction.
It means that when any suit on certain issues has been heard by the court for this parties, then
the same parties cannot bring the suit on the same points which have been already heard and
decided by the same or any other court prior to the court.
Thus, the doctrine attaches importance to one decision for one case and prohibits another.
(Narayanam Chettiyar Vs Annamlle Chettiyar, A.I.R. 1959, SC 275).

The main objective of this doctrine is to avoid multiplicity of suits. Had thus doctrine not been
there, there would been no end to litigation and no decision would have been final. One
individual could have filed suit on the same point many times.

Broadly, there are three objectives of this doctrine:

a. end of litigation;
b. security against double suits;
c. to give finality to the decision (Gulam Abbas Vs State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1981 SC
2198).

In Satya Charan Vs Dev Rajan (A.I.R. 1962, SC 941) the Supreme Court has decided that the
doctrine of res-judicata is based on the need of giving final shape to judicial decisions.
According to this, any case decided once cannot be reopened for decision.

This doctrine can be clarified by an example. A brings a suit against B in the capacity of owner
on the basis of contract which is rejected. Then A again brings suit against B on the basis of
same contract in the capacity of agent. This was prohibits on the principle of owner on the basis
of contract which is rejected. Then A again brings suit against B on the basis of same contract in
the capacity of agent. This was prohibited on the principle of res-judicata.

The essential elements of Res judicata

There are five elements of res-judicata or we can say that for the applicability of this doctrine,
five conditions are to be fulfilled:

a. in the subsequent suit the same issue must be involved directly and substantially which
was involved directly and actually and constructively in the earlier suit. In other words,
for applicability of resjudicata, the issue involved in the subsequent suit must have been
involved actually and constructively in the earlier suit.

In R.P. Gupta Vs Shri Krishna Poddar (A.I.R. 1965, SC 316), the supreme court has said
that in the subsequent suit the issue involved was not that which was involved in the
earlier suit. Then, there the doctrine of res judicata will not be applicable.

This can be classified by an example. A brought a suit against B for ousting on the basis
of patta which was decreed. But the decree could not have been executed in time. Then
A brought a suit against B for ousting on the basis of title. The Supreme Court did not
consider it prohibitory on the basis of res-judicata (Ajit Chopra Vs Sadhu Ram, A.I.R.
2000, SC 212).

In Sardar Bai Vs Mathari Bai (A.I.R. 2005, NOC 251, Madhya Pradesh) is a quotable case
on this point. In this case, there was a issue of completeness of title due to adverse
possession which was involved directly and substantially……..the parties, in the earlier
case. Again, the suit relating to title was brought. It was considered prohibitory on the
basis of doctrine of res judicata.

b. The second condition of the applicability of the doctrine of res judicata is that the same
parties must be involved in the later suit which were involved in the earlier suit or the
later suit some of the parties of earlier suits are involved. If the parties in the later suit
are different from those who were parties in the earlier suit, the doctrine of res judicata
will not apply.

Example: A filed a suit against B for rent. B argues that the owner of campus is not a but
C, then A fails to establish his title. Then A files a suit against B and C for establishing his
title. It was not considered as prohibited because the parties were different in the
second suit. (Dwarka Nath Vs Ram Chandra, 29, Calcutta 428)

c. The third condition of the applicability of the doctrine of res judicata is that the parties
have claimed having the same title in the earlier and the later suit. If in the later suit, in
the title changes, the doctrine of res judicata will not apply.
 Example: A brings a suit against B in the capacity of a heir of a Mahant (deceased) for
acquiring the property of a math. The suit is rejected because A could not prove himself
as heir of B. again, A brings a suit against B for acquiring the property of math in the
capacity of the manager of math. It was not considered as prohibitory by the doctrine of
res judicata because the capacity of A has been different in both the cases.

d. The fourth condition of the applicability of the doctrine of res judicata is that the court
which has decided the earlier case must be competent to decide the later case also.

Example: A suit was filed in the court of munsif for the vocation of premises and
recovery of rent due. Later on, a second suit was filed in another court for declaration of
title for which the court of munsif did not have jurisdiction. It was not considered as
prohibitory by the doctrine of res judicata.

e. The fifth condition of the applicability of the doctrine of res judicata is the finality of the
decision of the case. If all other conditions are fulfilled, the doctrine of res judicata will
not apply.

In Badami Lal Vs Harsha Vardhan (A.I.R. 1994, Rajasthan 9), the High Court has decide that the
earlier case must have been decide on the basis of giving the opportunity of hearing to both the
parties, for the applicability of the doctrine of res judicata. In other words, it can be said that
the earlier case should have been decided on the baiss of merits of the case.

If any case is rejected under order 9 Rule 8 on the basis of error then the doctrine of res
judicata will not apply to that case because it is not disposal of the case on the basis of its
merits (Gujarat Electricity Board, Baroda Vs Saurashta Chemicals, Porbandar, A.I.R. 2004,
Gujarat 83).
In State of Maharashtra Vs M/S National Construction Company (A.I.R. 1996, Sc 2364), the
Supreme Court has decided that the doctrine of res judicata will apply in a particular case only
when;

i. the issues in the earlier case were also involved in the later case actually and
substantially;
ii. such issues have been decide finally;
iii. such finalization was done by a competent court; and
iv. the parties have been given the opportunity of hearing before deciding the case.
Thus for applicability of the doctrine of res judicata, all the above conditions must be fulfilled.

Territoriality
The “place of suing” concept pertains to the trial’s location and is addressed in sections 15-21 of
the CPC (Code of Civil Procedure). Each Court possesses its specific jurisdiction based on
monetary and geographical factors. As per Section 15 of the CPC, the lawsuit should be initiated
at the Court with the lowest grade empowered to handle it.
What is the Place of Suing in CPC?
Place of suing in CPC refers to where a lawsuit or legal action should be initiated or filed. It
specifies the jurisdiction and venue where the case should be brought before a court.
The provisions regarding the place of suing are outlined in the Code of Civil Procedure to ensure
that the appropriate Court with the necessary jurisdiction is chosen for the efficient and fair
resolution of the dispute.
The rules and guidelines related to the place of suing help determine which Court is competent
to hear and decide a particular case based on factors such as the nature of the case, the subject
matter, the geographical location of the parties involved, and other relevant considerations.
Provisions for Place of Suing under CPC
The place of suing in CPC is discussed under Sections 15 to 20. Section 15 pertains explicitly to
the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. Sections 16 to 18 address suits concerning immovable
property, Section 19 covers suits related to compensation for wrongs and movable property,
and Section 20 deals with suits concerning other matters.
Section 15: Place of Suing Based on Pecuniary Basis
Section 15 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908- “Court in which suits to be instituted”-“Every suit
shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it”
Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure states that every lawsuit should be initiated in the
Court of the lowest grade with the competence to handle it. This requirement aims to prevent
overburdening of higher courts. While a judgment passed by a higher-grade court remains
valid, a decree passed by an incompetent court would be considered void.
Therefore, a higher court decree cannot be passed without jurisdiction, as clarified by the
Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Gopal v. Shamrao (1941).
Section 15 serves two primary purposes:
 Reducing the workload of higher courts.
  Providing convenience to the parties and witnesses involved in such lawsuits.
The jurisdiction of a court under Section 15 is determined based on the valuation stated by the
plaintiff in the lawsuit, rather than the final amount for which the Court will pass the decree.
Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan (1954)
In the case of Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan (1954), a bench comprising Justices Aiyyar and
T.L. Venkatarama considered the application of Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887. This
provision, along with Sections 21 and 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is founded on the
principle that once a case has been fully heard and a judgment has been pronounced, it should
not be overturned solely on technical grounds unless there has been a miscarriage of justice.
Mazhar Husain And Anr. v. Nidhi Lal (1885)
In the case of Mazhar Husain and Anr. v. Nidhi Lal (1885), heard by the Allahabad High Court
before India’s independence, elucidates the objectives of Section 15 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908. These objectives, as observed in the case, are as follows:
 Avoiding overburdening higher-grade courts with an excessive number of suits.
 Providing convenience to the parties and witnesses involved in such suits.
Tara Devi v. Sri Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj (1987)
In the case of Tara Devi v. Sri Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj (1987), the defendant raised a
preliminary objection regarding the valuation of the suit and questioned the Court’s authority
to hear the case in their written statement. The Trial Court determined that the valuation of the
suit fell under Section 7(IV)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, and that the plaintiff had correctly
assessed the leasehold interest of the lessee. The Trial Court concluded that the plaintiff had
the right to determine the value of the relief sought, which was neither arbitrary nor
unreasonable. Consequently, it was decided that the plaintiff had accurately assessed the claim
and paid the appropriate court fees.
In upholding the trial court’s decision, the Supreme Court of India noted that disregarding
objective valuation criteria and assigning a value to the relief sought can be arbitrary and
irrational. In such cases, the Court is justified in intervening.
Place of Suing for Matters Involving Immovable Property (Section 16-18)
Section 16
Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 states that suits related to specific types of
claims concerning immovable property should be instituted in the Court within the local
jurisdiction where the property is situated. These types of suits include:
 Recovery of immovable property with or without rent or profits,
  Partition of immovable property,
 Foreclosure, sale, or redemption in the case of a mortgage or charge on immovable
property,
 Determination of any other right or interest in immovable property,
 Compensation for wrong to immovable property,
 Recovery of movable property that is currently under distraint or attachment.
However, there is a provision that if a suit seeks relief or compensation for wrong to immovable
property held by or on behalf of the defendant. The relief can be entirely obtained through the
defendant’s obedience, the suit can be filed either in the Court within the jurisdiction where
the property is situated or in the Court within the jurisdiction where the defendant resides,
carries on business, or works for gain voluntarily and effectively.
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
Subject-matter jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court to hear and decide cases based on
the nature of the issues involved. Different courts are granted jurisdiction over specific types of
lawsuits to handle diverse legal matters. For instance, matters related to insolvency, probate,
divorce, and similar issues cannot be adjudicated by a court of civil judges of the junior division.
If a court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over a particular case, any decree or judgment issued
by that Court is considered null and void.
Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 allows invoking jurisdiction in five specific types
of suits, which are as follows:
 Partition of immovable property
 Recovery of immovable property
 Torts to immovable property
 Determination of any right or interest in the property
Sale, foreclosure, or redemption regarding a mortgage or charge on immovable property
In the case of Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd. (2005), the Supreme Court held
that an action could be filed under Section 16 of the CPC, 1908, in the jurisdiction where the
immovable property is located, regardless of factors such as the location of the cause of action
or the residence of the parties. In that particular case, since the immovable property was in
Gurgaon (Haryana), the Delhi High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.
Section 17 of the CPC
Section 17 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 states, “Suits for immovable property situate within
the jurisdiction of different Courts”.
In cases where the immovable property is situated within the local jurisdiction of different
courts if a lawsuit is filed seeking compensation or relief for wrongs caused to the immovable
property, it can be brought before any court within the jurisdiction where a portion of the
property is located. However, it is important to note that the Court hearing the case will have
cognizance over the entire claim, considering the significance of the subject matter of the suit.
Section 18
Section 18 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 deals with “Place of institution of suit where local
limits of jurisdiction of Courts are uncertain”.
(1) Where it is alleged to be uncertain within the local limits of the jurisdiction of which of two
or more Courts any immovable property is situate, any one of those Courts may, if satisfied that
there is ground for the alleged uncertainty, record a statement to that effect, and thereupon
proceed to entertain and dispose of any suit relating to that property, and its decree in the suit
shall have the same effect as the property situated within the local limits of its jurisdiction:
Provided that the suit is one with respect to which the Court is competent as regards the nature
and value of the suit to exercise jurisdiction.
(2) Where a statement has not been recorded under sub-section (1), and an objection is taken
before an Appellate or Revisional Court at a decree or order in a suit relating to such property
was made by a Court not having jurisdiction where the property is situate, the Appellate or
Revisional Court shall not allow the objection unless in its opinion there was, at the time of the
institution of the suit no reasonable ground for uncertainty as to the Court having jurisdiction
with respect thereto and there has been a consequent failure of Justice.
When there is uncertainty regarding the local jurisdiction of courts in relation to immovable
property, a court can record a statement and proceed with the case. The decree issued by that
Court will be effective as if the property was within its jurisdiction. However, suppose no
statement is recorded and an objection is raised before a higher court. In that case, the
objection will only be entertained if there is no reasonable ground for uncertainty when filing
the suit, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd. (1971)
In the case of Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd. (1971), the Supreme Court of India dealt
with the issue of how the trial of a suit should proceed when multiple courts have jurisdiction
over it. The defendant, a firm incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, had its main place
of business in Bombay and had entered into a contract with the plaintiff that included a
provision for arbitration and specified that disputes would be resolved exclusively in Bombay
courts. The plaintiff objected to this restriction, arguing that it was against public policy.
The observations made by the Supreme Court, in this case, are as follows:
Section 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, incorporates the entire Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
for actions under the Act. Therefore, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 governs the jurisdiction
of courts to consider arbitration proceedings and issue awards under the Arbitration Act, 1940.
Under Section 20(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the respondent company, with its major
place of business in Bombay, can be sued in the courts of Bombay.
Parties cannot confer jurisdiction on a court through an agreement if the Code of Civil
Procedure does not confer such jurisdiction. However, if two courts have jurisdiction to try a
suit under the Code, an agreement between the parties that the dispute be handled in one of
those courts is not against public policy.
The agreement between the parties, stipulating that the courts in Bombay alone shall have
jurisdiction to try the arbitration proceedings, is binding since the courts in Bombay possess
jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in this matter.
In summary, the Supreme Court held that the agreement between the parties, conferring
jurisdiction on the courts in Bombay to handle the arbitration proceedings, was valid and
enforceable as the Bombay courts had jurisdiction as per the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
M/s. Exl Careers and Another v. Frankfinn Aviation Services Private Limited (2020)
In the case of M/s. Exl Careers and Another v. Frankfinn Aviation Services Private
Limited (2020), the Supreme Court of India examined the language of Order VII Rule 10-A in
comparison to the language used in Section 24(2) and Section 25(3) of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908. The Court noted that there is a difference in the discretion provided to the
Court under Sections 24(2) and 25(3), which allows for the retrial or continuation of
proceedings from the point of transfer or withdrawal. On the other hand, the scheme outlined
in Order VII Rule 10 along with Rule 10-A does not grant such discretion. Instead, the
proceedings must begin anew.
This observation by the Apex Court highlights the contrasting approaches between the
provisions of Section 24(2) and Section 25(3) that enable the Court to retry or continue
proceedings, and the requirement under Order VII Rule 10, including Rule 10-A, where the
proceedings must commence afresh.
Place of Suing in CPC for Matters Involving wrongs to person or movables (Section 19)
Section 19 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 deals with “Suits for compensation for wrongs to
person or movables”.
In cases where a suit involves compensation for a wrong done to a person or movable property,
if the wrong occurred within the jurisdiction of one Court and the defendant resides, carries on
business, or personally works for gain within the jurisdiction of another court, the plaintiff has
the option to file the suit in either of the mentioned courts.
For instance, if Raj, who resides in Kolkata, commits a wrongful act against Suraj, who resides in
Gujarat, Suraj can choose to file the lawsuit in either the Court in Kolkata or the Court in
Gujarat, but not in a third unrelated court like Delhi. This provision allows the plaintiff to select
the Court based on their convenience or strategic considerations when the wrong and the
defendant’s location fall under different court jurisdictions.
Section 20: Place of Suing in CPC for Other Suits
Section 20 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 deals with “Other suits to be instituted where
defendants reside or cause of action arises”
“Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local
limits of whose jurisdiction-
(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the
commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or
personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement
of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain,
provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not
reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such
institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
Explanation I.-Where a person has a permanent dwelling at one place. Also, a temporary
residence at another place, he shall be deemed to reside at both places in respect of any cause
of action arising at the place where he has such temporary residence.
Explanation II.-A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office
in {Subs. by Act 2 of 1951, s.3, for “the States”.} [India] or, in respect of any cause of action
arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place.”
Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a residuary section that addresses situations where
the cause of action arises from a breach of contract or business transactions. According to this
section, if there is a breach of contract or a cause of action within the jurisdiction of one Court,
or if the defendant voluntarily resides, carries on business, or works for personal benefit within
the jurisdiction of another court, the plaintiff has the option to file the suit in either of those
courts.
For example, let’s consider a scenario where Rohit, a clothing manufacturer, is based in
Sonepat, and Sonam, a clothing retailer, is based in Gandhinagar. Through her agent, who
resides in Bangalore, Sonam enters into a transaction with Rohit. In such a case, the suit can be
filed either in Sonepat, where the cause of action originated, or in Gandhinagar, where Sonam
resides.
Section 20 provides flexibility to the plaintiff by allowing them to choose the Court that is most
convenient or beneficial for their case when the cause of action or the defendant’s location falls
under the jurisdiction of different courts.
Section 21: Objections to Jurisdiction for Place of Suing
Section 21 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 “Objections to Jurisdiction”
“No objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court
unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible
opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement, and unless
there has been a consequent failure of justice.”