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]
