What is distinction between Maintainability of a proceeding And Jurisdiction of a Court to entertain any proceeding?

Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and upon considering the record, it is evident that the Trial Court conflated the concepts of jurisdiction and maintainability. The terms "jurisdiction" and "maintainability" are often mistakenly

used interchangeably, yet they hold distinct legal connotations. A

precise understanding of the distinction is crucial for judicial

adjudication. Jurisdiction refers to the power and authority of a

court or tribunal to adjudicate a dispute and render a binding

decision. It is derived from the Latin words "juris" (law) and "dico" (I speak), which collectively signify "speaking by the law." The concept extends to the legal power to entertain, inquire into facts, apply the law, and issue enforceable judgments. Jurisdiction can be classified into three distinct categories:

Subject Matter Jurisdiction – The court’s power to deal with

a specific type of case based on statutory provisions.

Territorial Jurisdiction – The geographic area within which a

court can exercise its authority.

Pecuniary Jurisdiction – The monetary limits of a court’s

power to hear a case. {Para 11}

12. Jurisdiction derives its authority from statutes, and its

absence renders the court incompetent to decide the matter.

Jurisdiction does not depend on the correctness of the decision; a

court may decide rightly or wrongly, yet its jurisdiction remains

unaffected. It is foundational to the legitimacy of judicial

proceedings, as it embodies the legal capacity to entertain a suit

and adjudicate on the merits.

13. Maintainability pertains to whether a legal proceeding is

competent to be entertained, factoring in procedural and

substantive requirements. Maintainability relates to whether the

suit is procedurally valid and not inherently barred. A case

dismissed for lack of maintainability does not necessarily negate

the existence of jurisdiction, as it may only reflect procedural

infirmities. Unlike jurisdiction, maintainability addresses

preliminary objections arising from procedural non-compliance or statutory bars rather than the inherent authority of the court.

Examples of factors affecting maintainability include:

(i) Bar under Statutes: Prohibitions on the initiation of

proceedings due to legislative provisions (e.g., res judicata

under Section 11 of CPC).

(ii) Limitation Period: Filing of proceedings after the

prescribed period under the Limitation Act, 1963.

(iii) Locus Standi: The legal standing of the petitioner to

institute proceedings.

14. Jurisdiction derives its authority from statutes conferring

power on the court. Maintainability arises from procedural and

statutory compliance requirements for initiating proceedings. Lack of jurisdiction results in the nullity of proceedings, as the court inherently lacks authority to adjudicate. Non-compliance with maintainability bars leads to dismissal without deciding the merits of the case but does not affect the court’s inherent power.

15. Thus, while jurisdiction focuses on the court’s authority,

maintainability examines the legal validity of the proceedings.

19.  The jurisdiction of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, to

entertain such an application is derived under Section 2(c) of the

Act which defines court as a Civil Court having jurisdiction to

decide the questions forming the subject-matter of the reference if the same had been the subject-matter of a suit.

20. The Trial Court improperly conflated the provisions of

Section 20 with maintainability. Jurisdiction must be determined

based on the pleadings in the application. The petitioner’s

averments regarding the arbitration agreement and the alleged

consent by respondent No. 1 to appoint the arbitrator establish a

prima facie case for jurisdiction under the 1940 Act. The issue of

whether respondent No. 1 consented to the arbitrator’s

appointment or the draft award is a matter for substantive

adjudication and does not affect the Court’s jurisdiction to

entertain the application.

21. The Trial Court, while concluding that it lacked jurisdiction,

proceeded to consider the maintainability of the petitioner’s claim under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. This consideration was beyond the scope of the Trial Court’s authority, as a finding of lack of jurisdiction precludes further deliberation on the merits or maintainability of the case.

22. In view of the above analysis, the Trial Court’s order reflects

a fundamental misapplication of legal principles.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.2315 OF 2015

Deepak Manaklal Katariay  V/s.  Ahsok Motilal Katariya

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.

DATED : NOVEMBER 29, 2024

Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:46238

Print Page

Whether the appellant can take the plea of non-maintainability of the suit in the appeal if he has not taken said plea in the written statement?

 In so far as the first point of determination is concerned, it

is an admitted position that no such objection to the institution of

the suit was ever taken by the Appellant in their, otherwise detailed, written statement. Order VIII, Rule 2 of the CPC, provides that the defendant must raise by his pleading, all matters which show the suit not to be maintainable. If objection to the non-maintainability of the suit were to be raised by the appellant their written statement in the first place or even by amending the written statement, the Respondent would have had an opportunity to meet with such objection. The mere fact that some questions were posed to Mr. C. D. Chitnis (PW.1) in the course of his cross examination, is not sufficient to conclude that the Respondent was not taken by surprise or was not likely to be taken by surprise. Order 8, Rule 2 of CPC, as noted earlier, inter alia, provides that the Defendant must raise by his pleading all matters which show the suit not to be maintained and all grounds of defence, if not raised, would be likely to take the opposite party by surprise, or would raise the issues of

fact, not arising out of the plaint. Ordinarily, therefore, the

Appellant ought not to be allowed to raise such objection at the

appellate stage. {Para 19}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

FIRST APPEAL NO. 123 OF 2013

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.  Vs  Messrs Sesa Goa Ltd.,

Coram : M.S. Sonak &

Smt. M.S. Jawalkar, JJ.

Pronounced on : 16th January, 2020

J U G M E N T : (Per M.S. SONAK, J.)

Citation: 2020(5) MHLJ 66

Print Page

Whether court can direct parties to include more properties in suit for partition?

 Party to the suit cannot be forced or compelled to include the properties which are found in Exhibits before the Court as is done in the present case. The Trial Court has misdirected itself while passing the impugned judgment in the present suit. The preliminary issue with regard to whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and whether the suit of the plaintiffs is for partial partition as such the suit is not maintainable, are the issues which are to be answered along with other issues in the suit. The Trial Court fell into error in not answering all the issues. The Trial Court has committed an error in directing the parties to include the properties mentioned in Ex. D4 to Ex. D7. It is for the parties, either the plaintiffs or defendants to include the properties to the suit schedule for partition. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

Writ Petition No. 44513 of 2014 (GM-CPC)

Decided On: 06.08.2018

C.S. Sundaresha  Vs. C.S. Ananthalakshmi and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Shankar Ganapathi Pandit, J.

Citation: AIR 2019 Karnat 5

Print Page

Whether it is mandatory for court to frame issue that suit filed without execution of power of attorney is not tenable?

 Therefore, in the present case, when the defendant has taken an objection in the written statement that Surender Kumar had no authority to sign the plaint and verification and in the cross-examination the said Surender Kumar has admitted that on the date of signing the plaint and verifying the same, he had no special power of attorney, the trial Court should have framed an issue with regard to the maintainability of the suit, which has to be decided in the first instance. Even though the trial Court has failed to frame an issue in the first instance, on the basis of the evidence adduced by DW1 that he had no power of attorney at the time of signing the plaint and verification and subsequent to the filing of the suit, the power of attorney was executed in his favour, in accordance with Rule 5 of Order 14, before passing a final decree, the trial Court has got the power to frame issues. When the defendant took an objection that Surender Kumar has no power of attorney to sign the plaint and on the other hand, though he has got letter of authority and that he is entitled to sign the plaint and verification, the trial Court should have framed an issue where one proposition of fact is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. Therefore, keeping this in mind, the trial Court should have exercised the power contemplated under Rule 5 by framing an issue with regard to authority of Surender Kumar to sign the plaint, inasmuch as this issue goes to the root of the matter. Without framing issue with regard to the maintainability of the suit and the authority of the deponent to sign the plaint and verification, trial Court should have not given a finding that deponent has got letter of authority to sign the plaint.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

CCCA No. 153 of 1987

Decided On: 30.10.2000

 Unitech Industrial Corporation  Vs. Arvind Engineering Co., Hyd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

E. Dharma Rao, J.

Citation: AIR 2001 AP 177

Print Page

Whether it is mandatory for court to frame issue regarding maintainability of suit?

The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that as per Order 14, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the trial Court should have framed an issue on the basis of the plea taken by the defendants in their written statement that the suit is not maintainable on the ground that the deponent Mr. Surender Kumar had no special power of attorney on the date of signing the plaint and verification and the said Special Power of Attorney was executed subsequent to the date of filing of the suit. As such the suit is not maintainable and without framing an issue, the finding given by the trial Court that Surender Kumar as Manager was empowered to sign the plaint and verification is erroneous and therefore, the trial Court committed an error in not framing an issue with regard to the maintainability, which goes to the root of the matter irrespective of the fact that the plaintiff has merit in the case. It is mandatory on the part of the trial Court to frame an issue with regard to the maintainability of the suit, but the trial Court has erred in giving a finding in the absence of any issue framed to that effect. Therefore, on these two grounds, the judgment and decree of the trial Court are liable to be set aside.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

CCCA No. 153 of 1987

Decided On: 30.10.2000

 Unitech Industrial Corporation  Vs. Arvind Engineering Co., Hyd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

E. Dharma Rao, J.

Citation: AIR 2001 AP 177

Print Page

Whether error in mentioning date of cause of action will affect maintainability of suit?

The object underlying Order VII Rule (1) (e) which requires that the plaint shall contain the particulars about the facts constituting the cause of action and when it arose, is to enable the court to find out whether the plaint discloses the cause of action because the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC if it does not disclose the cause of action. The purpose behind the requirement that the plaint should indicate when the cause of action arose is to help the court in ascertaining whether the suit is not barred by limitation. Any error on the part of the plaintiff in indicating the date on which the cause of action arose would be of little consequence if the cause of action had arisen on the date on which the suit was filed and the suit was within limitation from the said date. The error in mentioning the date on which the cause of action had arisen in the plaint in such a case would not disentitle the plaintiff from seeking relief from the court in the suit.

Supreme Court of India

Kuldeep Singh vs Ganpat Lal & Anr on 5 December, 1995

Bench: Kuldip Singh, S. Saghir Ahmad

Citation:(1996) 1 SCC 243

Print Page

Whether prohibition in special Act for alienation of land bar maintainability of suit for specific performance?

Learned counsel for the appellant, however, further referred to Section 3 of the J & K Prohibition on Conservation of Land and Alienation of Orchards Act, 1975 which is as under: - 3. Prohibition on conversion of land and alienation of orchards.(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force

(a) no person shall alienate an orchard except with the previous permission of the Revenue Minister or such officer as may be authorised by him in this behalf;

[Provided that alienation of orchards to the extent of Four Kanals only in favour of one or more persons for residential purposes shall not need any permission.]

(b) Considering the aforesaid section, it is apparent that prohibition on transfer of orchards is not absolute and the question of obtaining previous permission as contemplated under Section 3(1)(a) would arise at the time of execution of the sale deed on the basis of decree for the specific performance. Section 3 does not bar the maintainability of the suit and permission can be obtained by filing proper application after the decree is passed. Therefore, it cannot be stated that decree for specific performance is not required to be passed. Further, under Section 3 of the J & K Prohibition on Conservation of Land and Alienation of Orchards Act, 1975, prohibition on transfer is limited. Firstly, the proviso makes it clear that alienation of orchards to the extent of four kanals only in favour of one or more persons for residential purposes will not require any permission. Secondly, for more than four kanals of land, previous permission of the Revenue Minister or such Officer as may be authorised by him in this behalf is required to be obtained. Dealing with similar contention, this Court in Bai Dosabai v. Mathuradas Govinddas and Others[(1980) 3 SCR 762] observed that even if the Act prohibits alienation of land, if the decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff, it is required to be moulded suitably. 

Supreme Court of India

Manzoor Ahmed Margray vs Gulam Hassan Aram & Ors on 5 October, 1999

Bench: M.B.Shah, D.P.Wadhwa

Citation:(1999) 7 Supreme Court Cases 703       

Print Page

When Civil court has jurisdiction to entertain suit in respect of Trust property?

In the instant case, as indicated above, the Suit has inter alia been
filed for cancellation of the Sale Deed dated 2/7/2012 executed in favour of
the Defendant No.7 by the Defendant Nos. 2 to 6.  In pursuit of the said reliefs,
the Plaintiffs have made averments in the plaint as to how a fraud has been
practiced upon them by the Defendant No.7 by getting the Sale Deed executed
in his sole name when there was a Memorandum of Understanding entered
into between the Trustees and the Plaintiffs and the Defendant No.7 in respect
of the suit property. No doubt the Sale Deed has been executed after the
sanction order was granted by the Charity Commissioner, however, what is
required to be borne in mind is the fact that after the Sale Deed is executed,
the property no more remains the property of the Trust, and in fact has become
the property of the Defendant No.7.  Since the Plaintiffs have a grievance in
respect of the Sale Deed which has been executed solely in favour of the
Defendant No.7, the Plaintiffs in seeking the relief of cancellation of the Sale
Deed can be said to be agitating their civil rights.  Though the Sale Deed is
executed   pursuant   to   the   order   passed  under   Section   36   of   the   said   Act,
however the fact of execution of the Sale Deed,  has over taken the order of the
Charity Commissioner granting sanction  under Section  36 of the said Act.
Hence there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the Applicant that the Plaintiffs in challenging the Sale Deed are in

fact challenging the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner under
Section 36 of the said Act. Considering the reliefs which are sought in the
Plaint, it may be that some of the reliefs cannot be granted by the Civil Court,
however, as rightly held by the Trial Court in the impugned order, the Suit is
maintainable before it in respect of some of the reliefs. Hence pre­requisites for
attracting the bar under Section 80 of the said Act are non­existent. It is
required to be noted that the challenge to the Sale Deed inter­alia on the
ground of fraud cannot be raised before the Charity Commissioner and the
same can only be raised by way of a Civil Suit. The Trial Court therefore can be
said to have correctly held that the Suit in respect of some of the reliefs was
maintainable before it.  Hence though some of reliefs cannot be granted by the
Civil Court in view of the bar under Section 80 of the said Act, at the same
time the Authorities under the said Act, cannot grant the relief by way of
prayer clause (a) and the said prayer can only be granted by a Civil Court. The
Trial Court has also taken into consideration the fact that for setting aside the
order passed under Section 36 of the said Act, the Plaintiffs have filed an
application under Section 36(2) of the said Act as the same obviously cannot
be challenged by way of a Suit.   As regards the contention of the learned
counsel for the Applicant that the Trial Court has erroneously proceeded on the
basis of the maintainability of the Suit whereas the question was about its
jurisdiction. In my view,  in some cases the issue of maintainability of Suit and
the issue of jurisdiction of Court eclipse each other, one such case can be said

to be the present one. Therefore, the order passed by the Trial Court ruling that
it has jurisdiction is well founded. It cannot be said that the Trial Court has
acted with material irregularity or in excess of its jurisdiction whilst holding
that it has jurisdiction to try and entertain the Suit.  In that view of the matter,
no case for exercise of the revisionary jurisdiction is made out.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.785 OF 2013
Pratap Shivaji Chumbale 
Versus
 Deepak Vishanath Pingale,

CORAM      : R. M. SAVANT, J.

Pronounced on : 13th December 2013
Citation; 2015 (7) ALLMR349

Print Page

When objection as to maintainability of suit is not tenable?

In the concluding stages, Mr. Bhatt did attempt to urge that the suit as instituted by Patwardhan was not at all maintainable before the Small Causes Court, because this was basically a dispute between the two persons claiming tenancy rights to the suit premises and the landlord was merely a formal party. Neither in the written statement nor in the memo of appeal, such contention, appears to have been raised by the applicant. That apart, Patwardhan, in his suit seeks declaration that he is the tenant in respect of the suit premises and it is for this purpose that the landlord has been impleaded as a defendant in the suit. If the provisions contained in Section 33 of the Rent Act are taken into consideration, there is no scope to entertain this objection raised by Mr. Bhatt to the very maintainability of the suit instituted by Patwardhan.

Bombay High Court

Dharamvir Ishwarlal Joshi vs Jayant Ramchandra Patwardhan And ... on 21 August, 2015

Bench: M.S. Sonak

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 225 OF 2015 ALONGWITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 349 OF 2015

Citation;2016(1) ALLMR 140

Print Page