Objections to Jurisdiction of Court Under Section 21, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“Code”) provides the grounds for objecting the jurisdiction of a court. There are three forms of objections stipulated under the section: (i) Objection as to the place of suing, (ii) objection as to the competence of a Court with reference to the pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction, and (iii) objection as to the competence of the executing Court with reference to the local limits of its jurisdiction. According to the section, such objections to jurisdiction should be taken at the earliest possible opportunity. In order that an objection to the place of suing may be entertained by an appellate or revisional court, the fulfilment of the following three conditions is essential[1]:

“(1) The objection was taken in the Court of first instance.

(2) It was taken at the earliest possible opportunity and in cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement.

(3) There has been a consequent failure of justice.”

The principle underlying section 21 is the same principle that has been adopted in Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act with reference to pecuniary jurisdiction, i.e., when a case had been tried by a court on the merits and judgment rendered, it should not be liable to be reversed purely on technical grounds, unless it had resulted in failure of justice.[2] Objections to the jurisdiction of a court are distinct from the objections to the competency of a court; the latter goes to the very root of the jurisdiction.[3] Whereas in the former case, the appellate court may not interfere with the decree unless prejudice is shown, ordinarily the second category of the cases would be interfered with.[4]

Ordinarily an appellate court shall not, having regard to the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, entertain an appeal on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction on the part of the court below unless he has been prejudiced thereby.[5] Similarly, on a plain reading of Sub-section (2) of Section 21 of C.P.C, it is manifest that two conditions must be satisfied before an objection to the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of a Court can be sustained and these are, that the objection must have been taken in the Court of the first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases, where issues are settled, at or before such settlement and that there must have been a consequent failure of justice.[6]

The discretion, for not entertaining objection where no prejudice is shown, cannot be used in favour of a party which deliberately invokes the jurisdiction of a court which has no jurisdiction whatsoever for ulterior motives.[7] The objection to the jurisdiction though taken before the trial Court should have been pressed to its normal end and failure to do so would amount to waiver as per Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure.[8] That is, if the defendant does not object, he will be deemed to have waived the right to object at a later stage. The waiver under Section 21 is limited to objections in the appellate and Revisional courts.[9] Section 21 is also a statutory recognition of the principle that the defect as to the place of suing under Sections 15 to 20 may be waived.

In all cases where issues were settled, at or before such settlement and even then an appellate or revisional court would not upset the order or decree passed by the trial court unless it is satisfied to hold that there has been a consequent failure of justice.[10] Where objection as to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court was not riased either in the written statement or thereafter at the time of settlement of issues, such object may not be raised at a later stage.[11] The objection to the jurisdiction whether it be pecuniary in nature or territorial in nature has to be raised at the earliest possible stage. In no case it can be raised after a decree is passed.[12] If a person does not object to the jurisdiction of the Court then the Court must assume that the party has submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court and the Court must proceed on that basis.[13] Interestingly, it has been opined by the Madras High Court that section 21, Civil Procedure Code would not render valid a decree passed by a Revenue Court having no jurisdiction in a matter that should have been brought in a civil Court.[14]

In conclusion, three important points should be remembered for invoking section 21 of the Code: (1) The objection was taken in the Court of first instance (2) It was taken at the earliest possible opportunity and in cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement; (3) There has been a consequent failure of justice. 

---

[1] Pathumma v. Kuntalan Kutty, (1981) 3 SCC 589, 591; R.S.D.V. Finance Co. (P) Ltd. v. Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd., (1993) 2 SCC 130, 135; Hindustan Corporation (Hyd) Private Ltd. v. SSB Industries Limited Pondicherry, (2013) 1 LW 40, 52 (Mad); Deepak Chaturaji Tabhane v. Sunanda, (2010) 7 Mah LJ 438, 443

[2] Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340; Subhash Mahadevasa Habib v. Nemasa Ambasa Dharmadas, (2007) 13 SCC 650, 666

[3] Hira Lal Patni v. Kali Nath, AIR 1962 SC 199

[4] Hasham Abbas Sayyad v. Usman Abbas Sayyad, (2007) 2 SCC 355, 363

[5] Mantoo Sarkar v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 2 SCC 244 at page 248

[6] Govindaraj v. Ponnammal & 7 others, (2006) 4 LW 360, 365 (Mad)

[7] ONGC v. Utpal Kumar Basu, (1994) 4 SCC 711, 722

[8] Om Sakthi Renergies Limited v. Megatech Control Limited & Anr, (2006) 2 LW 118, 124

[9] Bahrein Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. P.J. Pappu, AIR 1966 SC 634

[10] P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, (2005) 11 SCC 486, 487; See also Jagmohan Lal & Ors v. Harkishan Lal, (1994) 29 DRJ 123

[11] K.G. Mal & Anr. v. Sham Bihari Mal, (1994) 28 DRJ 314, 317

[12] Krishnalata v. Anilkumar, (2006) 6 Mah LJ 345, 347

[13] National Textile Corporation Ltd v. S.D. Sobharam, (2005) 4 Mah LJ 675, 679

[14] Kakumanu Pattabhiramayya v. Mekala Mallareddi And Others., (1950) 63 LW 62 (Mad)