What is the distinction between the territorial jurisdiction of the court in civil and criminal cases?

 While the question of territorial jurisdiction in civil cases, revolves mainly around (i) cause of action; or (ii) location of the subject matter of the suit or (iii) the residence of the Defendant etc., according as the case may be, the question of territorial jurisdiction in criminal Cases revolves around (i) place of commission of the offence or (ii) place where the consequence of an act, both of which constitute an offence, ensues or (iii) place where the Accused was found or (iv) place where the victim was found or (v) place where the property in respect of which the offence was committed, was found or (vi) place where the property forming the subject matter of an offence was required to be returned or accounted for, etc., according as the case may be.

19. While jurisdiction of a civil court is determined by (i) territorial and (ii) pecuniary limits, the jurisdiction of a criminal court is determined by (i) the offence and/or (ii) the offender. But the main difference between the question of jurisdiction raised in civil cases and the question of jurisdiction arising in criminal cases, is two-fold.

(i) The first is that the stage at which an objection as to jurisdiction, territorial or pecuniary, can be raised, is regulated in civil proceedings by Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure akin to Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(ii) The second is that in civil proceedings, a plaint can be returned, Under Order VII, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, to be presented to the proper court, at any stage of the proceedings. But in criminal proceedings, a limited power is available to a Magistrate Under Section 201 of the Code, to return a complaint. The power is limited in the sense (a) that it is available before taking cognizance, as Section 201 uses the words "Magistrate who is not competent to take cognizance" and (b) that the power is limited only to complaints, as the word "complaint", as defined by Section 2(d), does not include a "police report".

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Transfer Petition (Crl.) Nos. 456, 666 and 681 of 2019 (Petitions Filed Under Order XXXIX for Transfer of F.I.R. No. 452 Dated 14.09.2018)

Decided On: 30.09.2020

Kaushik Chatterjee  Vs.  State of Haryana and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

V. Ramasubramanian, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0729/2020.

Print Page

When court is justified in rejecting application for adjournment in civil case?

Civil - Closing of evidence - Petition filed against interlocutory order of closing the evidence of Plaintiff - Held, in present case, no list of witnesses was filed under Rule 1 of Order 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.) no application for leave to examine the witness which was named in the list of witnesses was made to the Court - Court was not required to adjourn the matter - Court granted adjournments on several occasions to give an opportunity to Plaintiff to examine A who was not named as a witness in the witness list - Suit was 5 years old and was part heard - Proviso to sub-Rule (2) of Rule 1 of Order 17 of C.P.C. provided that when the hearing of the suit had commenced, it should be continued from day to day - Evidence of witness was concluded on 22nd March 2010 - Under proviso of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 1 of Order 17 of C.P.C. - Court should have proceeded day to day but showing indulgence to Petitioner and granted two adjournments before closing evidence of Petitioner Plaintiff - There was no error committed by the Court in closing the evidence of Plaintiff - There was no merit in writ petition - Petition rejected.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 3930 of 2010

Decided On: 09.06.2010

M.M. Corporation Vs. The Juhu Vile Parle Development

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

D.G. Karnik, J.

Citation: (2010) 4 MHLJ 931

Print Page

Whether it is permissible to rely deposition recorded in criminal case in civil case?

The Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the matter
of The Gaya Muzaffurpur Roadways Co. and others vs. Fort
Gloster Industries Ltd. And another reported in AIR 1971
Calcutta 494 (V 58 C 112) in its para 19 and 21, while taking into
consideration, the impact of Section 125 of the Indian Evidence Act
has held that the deposition of the findings recorded by the Criminal
Court cannot be used as a substantive evidence i.e. as an admission 
in a Civil Court. Para 19 and 21 is reproduced herein below for
convenience:-
“19. Mr. Banerjee next contended that in any event, the liability
of the carrier was limited by the consignment notes which
constituted the basis of the agreement for transport. Before we
proceed to examine the contention, it is necessary to consider
whether the consignment notes for the suit goods were at all
issued to or accepted by the company. We have seen that the
entire goods of the company were carried by fourteen lorries, and
for each consignment in one lorry, one set of such notes was
issued. Out of the same twelve consignment notes containing
endorsement of due receipt by the consignee have been exhibited
in this case, being exhibits A to A-11 and conditions of carriage
are printed overleaf. As to the suit goods carried by the two
lorries, no consignment note was produced. It is an admitted
position that the relevant consignment notes were not signed by
the company. The learned Judge came to the finding that no
consignment notes were issued to the company, firstly because
they were not filed in this suit, though stated to have been filed in
the criminal proceedings. D. W. 1 stated that the consignment
notes were prepared in five copies, three were sent with the driver
of the lorry concerned, one was retained in their office and one
was sent to the company. The P. W. 2 who had no personal
knowledge stated in her evidence that there was a note in her
office to the effect that no consignment note was issued to the
company but the office note was not produced and this was rightly
commented by Mr. Banerjee. The learned Judge also relied on the
deposition of D. W. 1 in the criminal court (Ext. 9) where he
stated that the original consignment note with three copies,
meaning four copies were handed to the driver. Mr. Banerjee took
serious objection as to the admissibility of such deposition in
criminal court. His contention is that there was no compliance of
the requirement under Section 145 of the Evidence Act in that the
witness was not confronted with any particular statement which
again could only be admitted to shake the credibility of the
witness and could not be used by way of substantive evidence as
an admission. Mr. Banerjee relied on the decision in Bal
Gangadhar Tilak v. Shrinivas Pandit, 19 Cal 729 (742) = (AIR
1915 PC 7 (11) ) in which it was held that in absence of proof of
circumstances specified in Section 33 of the Evidence Act, the
introduction and use in bulk in a civil suit of depositions of
witnesses recorded in a criminal trial for contradicting or
discounting the witnesses of the suit without placing the
particular matter or point for explanation in view of the
discrepancy, "were illegitimate". Reliance was also placed on the
decision in Bhagawan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1952 SC 214
(218) and it was observed in that case that the witness should be
afforded a reasonable opportunity of explaining contradictions
after his attention is drawn to them in a fair and reasonable
manner.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Appeal from Order No. 103 of 2017
Smt. Akshi Yadav 
V
Pradeep Yadav 


Coram:- Hon’ble Rajiv Sharma, J.

Decided on : 22.06.2017

Print Page

Landmark judgment on jurisdiction of High court in civil cases

“17. The expression cause of action has acquired a judicially  
settled meaning. In the restricted sense cause of action means  
the   circumstances   forming   the   infraction   of  the   right or   the  
immediate occasion for the action. In the wider sense it means  
the   necessary   conditions   for   the   maintenance   of   the   suit, 
including not only the infraction of the right, but the infraction  
coupled   with   the   right   itself.   Compendiously   the   expression 
means every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff  
to   prove,   if   traversed,   in   order   to   support   his   right   to   the  
judgment   of   the   Court.   Every   fact   which   is   necessary   to   be  
proved, as distinguished from every piece of evidence which is 
necessary to prove each fact, comprises in cause of action. It  
has to be left to be determined in each individual case as to 
where the cause of action arises. The Chief Justice of the High  
court has not been conferred with the legislative competence to  
define cause of action or to declare where it would be deemed 
to have arisen so as to lay down artificial or deeming test for  
determining territorial jurisdiction over an individual case or 
class   of   cases.   The   permanent   bench   at   Jaipur   has   been  
established by the Presidential Order issued under sub­section  
(2) of Section 51 of the Act. The territorial jurisdiction of the  
permanent bench at Jaipur is to be exercised in respect of the  
cases arising in the specified districts. Whether the case arises  
from one of the specified districts or not so as to determine the  
jurisdictional   competence   to   hear   by   reference   to   territory 
bifurcated between the principal seat and the bench seat, shall  
be an issue to be decided in an individual case by the judge or  
judges   hearing   the   matter   if   a   question   may   arise   in   that 
regard. The impugned explanation appended to the Order of  
the Chief Justice dated 23rd December, 1976 runs counter to  
the Presidential Order and in a sense it is an inroad into the  
jurisdiction of the judges hearing a particular  case or cases, 
pre­empting a decision to be given in the facts of individual  
case whether it can be said to have arisen in the territory of a  
particular district. The High Court is right in taking the view  
which it has done.” 



MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.341 OF 2013.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
     MRs Sayali swapnil kuber V Swapnil S/o. Harischandra 
Kuber,

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
CORAM  :   A.B.CHAUDHARI, J.
DATED    :   SEPTEMBER 19, 2013.
Citation; 2014(5) ALLMR 97

Print Page

Whether Video conferencing can be used in civil cases subject to conditions?

 Examination of witnesses in criminal cases, through video conferencing was approved by the Supreme Court in a judgment reported in State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai 2003 (2) ALT (Crl.) 118 (SC). When such is the facility accorded in criminal cases, there should not be any plausible objection for adopting the same procedure, in civil cases as long as the necessary facilities, with assured accuracy exist. In Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v. NRI Film Production Associates (P) Ltd. . and Amitabh Bagchi v. Ena Bagchi . High Courts of Karnataka and Calcutta held that recording of evidence through video conferencing is permissible in law, provided that necessary precautions must be taken, both as to the identity of the witnesses and accuracy of the equipment, used for the purpose. Certain guidelines were indicated therein. The party, who intends to avail such facility, shall be under obligation to meet the entire expenditure.

For the foregoing reasons, C.R.P., is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. The I.A., shall stand allowed, subject to the conditions that:

(a) it shall be the obligation of the petitioner to arrange the necessary equipment for recording the evidence through video conferencing, duly satisfying the trial Court as to the accuracy of the equipment and identity of the witness;

(b) the petitioner shall be under obligation to display the passport and its individual pages as may be demanded, on behalf of respondent, and he shall abide by the directions of the Court, issued during the course of recording;

(c) the petitioner shall make necessary arrangements for undertaking this exercise within one month from to-day, in default, the trial Court shall proceed with the other steps.

Andhra High Court

Bodala Murali Krishna vs Smt. Bodala Prathima on 11 October, 2006

Citations: 2007 (2) ALD 72, 2007 (1) ALT 237

Bench: L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

Print Page

Whether it is necessary to seal required conversation of CD in civil case?

Documentary evidence requirement of sealing the required conversation of CD is of essense in cirminal case. Such Procedure not required to be followed in civil trial.

Bombay High Court

Mrs.Havovi Kersi Sethna vs Mr.Kersi Gustad Sethna on 28 January, 2011

Bench: R. S. Dalvi

Citation: 2011(3) Bom CR 100

Print Page