Provisions of CPC regarding place of institution of suit

S 16 of CPC:- Suits are to be instituted where immovable property is situated.

S 19 of CPC:- Where a suit  is for compensation for wrong done  to the  person or to movable property ,if wrong was done within the local limits of jurisdiction of one court and defendants resides,or carries on business or personally works for gain within the local limits of jurisdiction of another court,suit may be instituted at the option of plaintiff in either of said courts.

Print Page

When an objection as to place of suing cannot be allowed by appellate or revisional court?

We find that Pathumma (supra) really Concludes the matter before us. In paragraphs 5 and 6 of the judgment, it is stated as under:

"5. 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) 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.

6. All these three conditions must coexist. Now in the present case Conditions 1 and 2 are no doubt fully satisfied; but then before the two appellate courts below could allow the objection to be taken, it was further necessary that a case of failure of justice on account of the place of suing having been wrongly selected was made out. Not only was no attention paid to this aspect of the matter but no material exists on the record from which such failure of justice may be inferred. We called upon Learned Counsel for the contesting Respondents to point out to us even at this stage any reason why we should hold that a failure of justice had occurred by reason of Manjeri having been chosen as the place of suing but he was unable to put forward any. In this view of the matter we must hold that the provisions of the Sub-section above extracted made it imperative for the District Court and the High Court not to entertain the objection whether or not it was otherwise well founded. We, therefore, refrain from going into the question of the correctness of the finding arrived at by the High Court that the Manjeri Court had no territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the application praying for final decree."

10. Obviously Section 21 will apply in the three situations mentioned therein. The first situation refers to the place of suing. The second situation refers to pecuniary limits of the Court's jurisdiction and the third refers to local limits of the Court's jurisdiction. In each of these cases it is stated that an Appellate Court or Revisional Court shall not allow an objection to the place of suing (which refers to Section 16 in the present case) 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. What follows is important. An objection as to place of suing cannot be allowed unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

C.A. No. 10589 of 2014 (Arising Out of SLP(C) No. 3960 of 2007)

Decided On: 25.11.2014

K.P. Ranga Rao Vs. K.V. Venkatesham

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:Ranjan Gogoi and Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.

Citation:(2015) 13 SCC514

Print Page

When objection as to place of suing can be allowed by appellate or revisional Court ?

Sub-sections 1 and 2 of Section 21 of the CPC deal
with powers of appellate or revisional Court to consider the
objections as to the place of suing and pecuniary limits of
jurisdiction of Civil Court. They lay down the conditions for
exercise of power thereunder to allow such objections by the
appellate or revisional Court. These conditions are:-
(I) such objections must be taken in the Court of first
instance at the earliest possible opportunity,
(2) they must be taken in all cases where issues are
settled, at or before settlement of issues.
(3) there has been a consequent failure of justice.
21. In the case of RSDV finance company (supra)
Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the objection as to the place
of suing can be allowed by the appellate or revisional Court only
when above referred three conditions are fulfilled.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR.
SECOND APPEAL NO. 130 OF 2011.

Sureshkumar S/o. Rochiram Jagyasi, Vs Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd.,

CORAM:-S. B. SHUKRE, J.

PRONOUNCED ON :26TH FEBRUARY, 2014.
Citation;2015(2) ALLMR748

Print Page