⚖️ CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : JURISDICTION OF COURTS ⚖️
🏛️ COURTS TO TRY ALL CIVIL SUITS UNLESS BARRED
📚 SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS ON SECTION 9 CPC
- Jambu Rao Satappa v. Neminath Appayya [1968 SC]
- Gundaji Satwaji Shinde v. Ramchandra Bhikaji Joshi [1979 SC]
🎯 Preparation for RJS, DJS, PCS (J) and other Judicial Service exams
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE EXPLAINED
The Civil Procedure Code forms the bedrock of any and every Judicial Service exam in the country. Its thorough knowledge is a must for all aspirants of RJS, DJS, PCS (J) and every other Judicial Service exam. To help such aspirants, DELHI LAW ACADEMY JAIPUR has launched a series of study material modules on all important aspects of this vital part of their syllabus:
⚖️ Courts to try all civil suits unless barred (Section 9)
- Courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature except suits whose cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.
Explanation:
- A suit in which right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of a civil nature even when such right depends entirely on questions of religious rites or ceremonies.
📜 Supreme Court Cases on Section 9 CPC
Case 1: Jambu Rao Satappa v. Neminath Appayya [1968 SC]
- In a suit for specific performance the defendant contended that if the contract is enforced it would violate S. 35 of the Tenancy Act in that the plaintiff’s holding after the appointed day would exceed the ceiling and the acquisition in excess of the ceiling is invalid.
Contention:
- The question whether an acquisition in excess of the ceiling would be invalid would be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Mamlatdar u/s 70.
- The Civil Court cannot decide or deal with this question and a reference ought to have been made to the Mamlatdar.
Supreme Court:
- The Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain and decree a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell land.
- If upon the sale being completed it would violate some provision of the Tenancy Act an enquiry has to be made under S. 84-C.
- This inquiry has to be made after the acquisition of title pursuant to a decree for specific performance.
- The transfer may not be invalid at all because the purchaser may have already disposed of his prior holding.
- When the scheme of the Act is examined it becomes clear that the legislature has not declared the transfer or acquisition invalid, for S. 84-C provides that the land in excess of the ceiling shall be at the disposal of the Govt when an order is made by the Mamlatdar.
- The invalidity of the acquisition is, therefore, only to the extent to which the holding exceeds the ceiling prescribed by law and involves the consequence that the land shall vest in Govt.
Case 2: Gundaji Satwaji Shinde v. Ramchandra Bhikaji Joshi [1979 SC]
Claim of the plaintiff:
- Plaintiff claimed specific performance of a contract dated 15th Dec 1965 for sale of agricultural land.
Defence of the defendant:
- As the intending purchaser, the plaintiff, was not an agriculturist within the meaning of the Bombay Tenancy Act, S. 63 prohibited him from purchasing the land.
- As the agreement was contrary to the Tenancy Act, the same cannot be specifically enforced.
Trial Court:
- On the question of the plaintiff being an agriculturist, the trial Court itself recorded a finding that the plaintiff was not an agriculturist.
- On the question of jurisdiction to decide the issue whether the plaintiff is an agriculturist, the trial Court was of the opinion that it being an incidental issue in a suit for specific performance of contract, which suit the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try, it will also have jurisdiction to decide the incidental or subsidiary issue.
Relevant provisions of the Tenancy Act:
- Section 63: “No sale…. of any land….. shall be valid in favour of a person who is not an agriculturist…..”
- Section 70: Duties and functions to be performed by the Mamlatdar: (a) to decide whether a person is an agriculturist…..
- Section 85: No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to decide any question…. which is under this Act required to be decided by the Mamlatdar….
The issue:
- The focal point of controversy is where in a suit for specific performance an issue arises whether the plaintiff is an agriculturist or not, would the Civil Court have jurisdiction to decide the issue or the Civil Court would have to refer the issue under S. 85-A of the Tenancy Act to the authority constituted under the Act, viz., Mamlatdar.
Supreme Court:
- Section 70(a) constitutes the Mamlatdar a forum……to decide whether a person is an agriculturist.
- It may be that jurisdiction may be conferred on the Mamlatdar to decide whether a person is an agriculturist within the meaning of the Tenancy Act but it does not ipso facto oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide that issue if it arises before it in a civil suit.
- Unless the Mamlatdar is constituted an exclusive forum to decide the question, conferment of such jurisdiction would not oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.
- By an express provision contained in S. 85, jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide any question which is under the Tenancy Act required to be decided by the competent authority is ousted.
- Ss. 85 and 85-A oust jurisdiction of Civil Court not in respect of civil suit but in respect of questions and issues arising therein.
- By the camouflage of treating issues arising in a suit as substantial or incidental or principal or subsidiary, Civil Court cannot arrogate to itself jurisdiction which is statutorily ousted.
- Therefore, in a suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of a contract, on rival contentions a specific issue would arise whether the plaintiff is an agriculturist because if he is not, the Civil Court would be precluded from enforcing the contract as it would be in violation of a statutory prohibition and the contract would be unenforceable as being prohibited by law and, therefore, opposed to public policy.
⚖️ Distinction between Gundaji Satwaji Shinde case and Jambu Rao Satappa case:
- The distinguishing feature of the Gundaji Satwaji Shinde case is that S. 63 bars purchase of agricultural land by one who is not an agriculturist and, therefore, the disqualification is at the threshold…
- and unless it is crossed the Court cannot decree a suit for specific performance of contract for sale of agricultural land and in order to dispose of the contention which stands in the forefront a reference to the Mamlatdar u/s 70 read with Ss. 85 and 85-A is inevitable.
📚 Continue Your CPC Preparation
Don’t stop here! Strengthen your knowledge of the Civil Procedure Code with our other fully solved tests:
📘 Free Study Material for Judiciary Aspirants!
Download our FREE study material prepared by Delhi Law Academy’s expert faculty.
❓ Frequently Asked Questions on Section 9 CPC
⚖️ What does Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) deal with?
Section 9 CPC provides that Civil Courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature unless their cognizance is expressly or impliedly barred. It is the foundation of civil jurisdiction in India and ensures that citizens can seek remedies for their civil rights through courts.
🏛️ What is meant by “suits of a civil nature” under Section 9 CPC?
A “suit of a civil nature” includes cases involving rights related to property, office, or status, even when such rights depend on religious ceremonies or practices. The key test is whether the main dispute affects private civil rights rather than criminal, political, or administrative matters.
📜 When is jurisdiction of Civil Courts barred under Section 9 CPC?
Jurisdiction is barred only when a specific law expressly prohibits the Civil Court from hearing a matter or where such prohibition is implied by necessary implication. For example, matters under exclusive jurisdiction of tribunals or statutory authorities like Mamlatdars are barred from Civil Courts.
⚖️ What was held in Jambu Rao Satappa v. Neminath Appayya (1968 SC)?
The Supreme Court held that Civil Courts have jurisdiction to decree a suit for specific performance even if, after completion of the sale, certain tenancy law provisions may apply. The invalidity of acquisition arises only after completion and must be dealt with under the Tenancy Act, not at the threshold.
📚 What was the key issue in Gundaji Satwaji Shinde v. Ramchandra Bhikaji Joshi (1979 SC)?
The case examined whether a Civil Court could decide if the plaintiff was an agriculturist under the Bombay Tenancy Act. The Supreme Court clarified that although Mamlatdars have jurisdiction to decide certain tenancy issues, this does not automatically oust the Civil Court’s jurisdiction unless expressly stated.
🧠 How can RJS, DJS, and PCS(J) aspirants prepare Section 9 CPC effectively?
Judicial exam aspirants should study Section 9 CPC with case law like Jambu Rao Satappa and Gundaji Shinde, understand the difference between express and implied bar of jurisdiction, and practice previous-year questions. DLA Jaipur’s CPC modules provide concise notes, case digests, and conceptual clarity.
Contact us
📍 Delhi Law Academy – Jaipur Branch
6C, Tower 2, Coaching Hub, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur – 302033
📞 Phone:
+91 9911916552
+91 8447285606
✉️ Email:
contactus@delhilawacademy.com