UNIT 1

Q: Disputed decided by CIVIL COURT

Types of civil disputes
A panoply of matters come under the ambit of civil disputes. These can classify into 5
different types such as:
Tort claims 
A tort is wrong done to a person which the legal right vested in another person. Section
2(m) of the Limitation Act, 1963 defines “tort” as a civil wrong which is not exclusively the
breach of a contract or the breach of trust. Such wrong is redressable by an action for
unliquidated damages. Torts can be mainly classified into acts affecting:
1. a person such as trespass or negligence, 
2. the family, like wrongful death of a family,
3. the reputation like libel and slander,
4. the property such as trespass to land or goods, nuisance conversion
5. the economic rights such as deceit, inducement of breach of contract and injurious
falsehood. 
Breach of contract claims
A breach of contract arises due to the non-performance of a duty undertaken by a party to
contract.  Unlike a tort, these claims arise due to breach of duties undertaken by the parties
in the agreement. Damages are the remedy claimed mainly on breach of contract which is
mostly liquidated. Examples of contract disputes are:
1. Disputes between a landlord and a tenant.
2. Disputes between a homeowner and building contractor for remodelling.
3. Disputes over the sale of the property.
4. Defective product that has been sold.
5. Non-delivery of paid purchases.
6. Violation of the non-compete agreement.
7. Violation of the business agreement.
Property disputes
Property disputes are the most common form of litigation in India. Such disputes deal with
property and interests lying therein. Such disputes can also arise within the blood relations
on ancestral property. Examples of property disputes are:
 1. Partition suit among family members.
2. Landlord and tenant disputes.
3. Title suits for declaration of ownership.
4. Disputes relating to boundary, pathway or common area.
Equitable claims  
While the previous types of disputes are legal claims, an equitable claim is a claim to the
court to order a party to take some action or stop some action. Such an equitable claim
may also go along with a legal claim i.e., a claim for monetary damages. So, what is sought
from the court in equitable claims is an injunction which directs or restrains the party to
prevent any harm. Examples to such disputes are:
1. Stop a developer from building a commercial plaza in a residential area.
2. Have a party cease a certain activity.
3. Transfer property to the rightful owner.
4. Order a repair to property that is dangerous to visitors.
5. Order a change of policy or to post warning signs.
Matrimonial disputes
Matrimonial disputes arise based on the institution of marriage between the two parties.
Family Courts constituted under the Family Courts Act, 1984 have jurisdiction to try these
disputes. The remedies claimed under such dispute are:
1. divorce for dissolution of marriage.
2. restitution of conjugal rights.
3. nullity of marriage.
4. judicial separation.
5. maintenance allowance by the wife from her husband.
These claims are different for marriages under different religions and they are regulated by
statutes like Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939, Muslim
Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986, the Special Marriage Act, 1954, the
Divorce Act 1869, the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936, Foreign Marriage Act, 1969,
etc.
Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal & Ors.
Pleadings generally mean Plaint or Written statement as per Rule 1 Order VI of CPC. In civil
proceedings, the facts and evidence are established by the parties only through pleadings.
The Supreme Court in this case enunciated the importance of pleadings. It is said that the
object and purpose of pleadings and issues are to ensure that the litigants come to trial
with all issues clearly defined and to prevent cases being expanded or grounds being
shifted during the trial.
Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra & Ors
Raju Ramsing Vasave v. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar

Q: Provisions to determine the jurisdiction by civil court?

The basis to determine jurisdiction
Jurisdiction is determined mainly on the grounds of:
1. Fiscal value;
2. Geographical boundaries of a court;
3. The subject matter of court.
So, the Court, before accepting notice of crime, need to take into consideration the
following characteristics:
 The Fiscal value of the trial.
 The specialities of the case.
 The regional limits of the court.
It is not only suitable that panel should have any right to deal with the issue or that the
court has a pecuniary jurisdiction of the court has a local jurisdiction, but the court must be
able to grant the compensation in such matter. In the case of Official Trustee Vs Sachin
Nath, the court held that in order to deal with the topic the court must not be the only
jurisdiction to decide a specific matter but also the court has the ability to give the order for
which it is examined.

Jurisdiction of civil court

Section 9 of CPC
Section 9 of the Code of Civil procedure deals with the jurisdiction of civil courts in India. It
declares that the court shall have jurisdiction to try all lawsuits of civil nature accepting
suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.
Conditions
A Civil court has jurisdiction to decide a suit if two requirements are fulfilled:
1. The suit must be of a civil nature.
 2. The cognizance of such a suit should not have been expressly or impliedly barred.
i) The suit of civil nature
Meaning
‘Civil Suit’ has not been explained in any act. Any suit that is not criminal in nature can be
termed as a suit of a civil nature. Any suit that pertains to determination and
implementation of civil rights may be defined as a civil suit.
Nature and scope
The expression ‘suit of civil nature’ will cover the private rights and obligations of the
citizens. The political and religious question is not covered by a suit of a civil nature. A suit
in which principal question is related to caste or religion is not of a suit of a civil nature
Explanation of doctrine
Each phrase and description assigns a duty on the court to apply jurisdiction for the
accomplishment of rights. No court can decline to examine if it is of the information
mentioned in Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The word civil according to the
dictionary suggests, associating to a citizen as an individual. The word nature has been
called the primary qualities of a person or thing. The word civil nature is prevalent than the
word civil proceeding.
Test
A suit in which the right to property or to an office is struck is a suit of a civil nature,
notwithstanding that such right may depend only on the choice of a question as to religious
rituals or ceremonies.
ii) Cognizance not barred
A claimant having a complaint of a civil nature has the power to begin a civil suit unless its
cognizance is barred, either expressly or impliedly.
Suits expressly barred
A suit is said to expressly barred when it is prohibited by the statute for the time being in
force. It is subject to the competent legislature to bar the jurisdiction of civil courts with
regard to a specific class of suits of civil nature, provided that, in doing so it retains itself
within the scope of legislation given to it and does not contradict any terms of the
constitution.
Suits impliedly barred
A suit is said to be impliedly barred when it is said to be excluded by general principles of
law. When a specific remedy is given by statute, it, therefore, denies a person who requires
a remedy of any different form than is given by statute. When an act formed an obligation
and made its performance in a specified manner that performance cannot be implemented
in any other manner.
Presumption as to jurisdiction
In dealing with the subject whether a civil court’s jurisdiction to analyse a suit is barred or
not, it is necessary to bear in mind that every opinion should be made in support of the
jurisdiction of a civil court. The rejection of the jurisdiction of a civil court to entertain civil
causes should not be easily inferred unless the appropriate law contains express terms to
that effect or points to a significant and inevitable implication of nature.
Burden of proof
It is well proved that it is for the party who tries to dismiss the jurisdiction of the civil court
to establish it. It is uniformly well established that the statue dismissing the jurisdiction of a
civil court must be strictly explained. In the case of doubt as to jurisdiction, the court should
lean towards the theory of jurisdiction. A civil court has original authority to determine the
issue of its own jurisdiction although as a consequence of such query it may become that it
has no jurisdiction to consider the suit.
Exclusion of jurisdiction: Limitations
The common assumption is that the civil court has the jurisdiction to try the case. The
prosecution has a case of a civil nature has, independent of any statute, a power to initiate
a suit in a civil court unless its notice is expressly or impliedly barred yet it cannot be said
that the jurisdiction is entirely eliminated.
Principles of exclusion of jurisdiction of civil court
Dhulabhai v. state of MP
Premier automobiles v. K.D Wadke
The Supreme Court laid down the following principles as relevant to the jurisdiction of civil
courts in association with industrial disputes:
1. If a conflict is not an industrial conflict, nor does it correlate to the enforcement of
any other right under the industrial dispute act, the remedy lies only in civil court.
2. If a conflict is an industrial conflict emerging out of a right or liability under the
general or public law, the jurisdiction of the court is an alternative left to the person
involved to decide his remedy for the support which is sufficient to be given in a
particular remedy.
3. If an industrial dispute relates to the implementation of the right or a duty organised
under the act, then the only remedy available is to get adjudication under the act.
Rajasthan SRTC v. Krishna Kant
Q: KIND OF JURISDICTIONS?
Territorial or local jurisdiction
Under this territorial or local jurisdiction, the geographical limits of a court’s authority are
clearly delineated and specified. It cannot exercise authority beyond that geographical/
territorial limit. For example, if a certain crime is committed in Madhya Pradesh, only the
courts of law within the borders of Madhya Pradesh can hear and decide the case. In the
case of Harshad Chiman Lal Modi Vs D.L.F Universal Ltd  , the court interpreted Section 16
that the suit pertaining to immovable property should be brought to the court.
Pecuniary jurisdiction
Pecuniary means ‘related to capital.’ It approaches the question of whether the court is
competent to try the case of the financial value. The code allows analysing the case unless
the suit’s value exceeds the financial limit of the court. Section 15 of the Code of Civil
Procedure commands the organisation of the suit in the court of the low grade. It refers to
pecuniary jurisdiction of Civil court. It is a course of the method and it does not affect the
jurisdiction of the court. The main objective of establishing pecuniary jurisdiction is to
prevent the court of a higher level from getting burdened and to provide assistance to the
parties.
Jurisdiction as to the subject matter
The subject matter can be defined as the authority vested in a court to understand and try
cases concerning a special type of subject matter. In other words, it means that some
courts are banned from hearing cases of a certain nature. No question of choices can be
decided by the court which do not have subject matter jurisdiction. Section 21 of the Code
of Civil Procedure is related to the stage challenging the jurisdiction. For Example,
“Ranveer”, a resident of Sonipat bought a food item of ‘AA’ brand that was plagued with
pests. He should prosecute ‘ZZ’ company in Sonipat District forum rather than District Civil
Court of Sonipat.
Original and appellate jurisdiction
Appellate jurisdiction refers to the court’s authority to review or rehearsal the cases that
have been already decided in the lower courts. In the Indian circumstances, both the High
Court and Supreme Court have the appellate jurisdiction to take the subjects that are
bought in the form of appeals.
Original Jurisdiction refers to the court’s authority to take notice of cases that could be
decided in these courts in the first instance itself. Unlike appellate jurisdiction wherein
courts review the previously decided matter, here the cases are heard afresh.
Exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction
In Civil Procedure, exclusive jurisdiction means where a single court has the authority to
decide a case to the rejection of all the courts. This jurisdiction is decided on the basis of
the subject matter dealt with by a specific court. For example, the U.S District courts have
particular jurisdiction on insolvency topics.
Concurrent jurisdiction exists where two or more courts from different systems
simultaneously have jurisdiction over a particular case. In this situation, parties will try to
have their civil or criminal case heard in the court that they perceive will be most
favourable to them.
General and special jurisdiction
General jurisdiction means that general courts do not limit themselves to hearing only one
type of cases. This type of jurisdiction means that a court has the power to hear all types of
cases. So the court that has general jurisdiction can hear criminal, civil, family court case
and much more. Specific jurisdiction is the ability of the court to hear a lawsuit in a state
other than the defendant’s home state if that defendant has minimum contacts within the
state where the suit will be tried.
Legal and equitable jurisdiction
Equitable jurisdiction belongs to the authorities of the courts to take specific actions and
pass some orders in order to deliver an equitable and reasonable outcome. These
judgments are usually outside the purview of law, in the sense that support provided by the
courts may not be necessarily confirmed by the statue. In the case of K.K.Velusamy Vs
N.Palanisamy, the Supreme Court of India held that Section 151 does not give any special
jurisdiction to civil courts, but only presents for the application of discretionary power to
achieve the ends of justice.
Expounding and expanding jurisdiction
Expounding jurisdiction means to describe, clarify and explain jurisdiction. Expanding
jurisdiction means to develop, expand or prolong jurisdiction. It is the duty of the court to
clarify its jurisdiction and it is not proper for the court to extend its jurisdiction.

Q: JUDGEMENT, FOREIGN JUDGEMENT, FOREIGN COURT, REPRESENTATIVE SUITS

Q: Judgement 
The term Judgement is defined in Section 2(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. A
judgement contains facts of the case, the issues involved, the evidence brought by the
parties, finding on issues (based on evidence and arguments). Every judgement shall
include a summary of the pleadings, issues, finding on each issue, ratio decidendi and the
relief granted by the court. On a daily basis, numerous judgements are pronounced and
various cases are disposed of. Judgements play a very important role in the working of our
judicial system because they act as precedents for cases to come in the near future. A judge
in the judgement pronounced, always states the reasons for such a decision.
Q: Foreign Judgement
A foreign Court is defined as a court situate outside India and not established or continued
by the authority of the Central Government. And a Foreign Judgment means a judgment of
a foreign court. In other words, a foreign judgment means adjudication by a foreign court
upon a matter before it.
Thus judgments delivered by courts in England, France, Germany, USA, etc. are Foreign
judgment. Sections 13 and 14 enact a rule of res judicata in case of foreign judgments.
These provisions embody the principle of private international law that a judgment
delivered by a foreign court of competent jurisdiction can be enforced by an Indian court
and will operate as res judicata between the parties thereto except in the cases mentioned
in Section 13.

What is foreign Judgement?

The term foreign judgments defined under Section 2 (6) of the code of civil procedure
means the judgment of a foreign court, and Section-13 of the code provides the criteria
with the code for recognition of a foreign judgment and is a pre-condition to any
enforcement proceedings unless a foreign judgment passes the conclusiveness test under
Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, it cannot be enforced.

What is a Foreign court?

"Foreign court " defined under Section 2 (5) means court outside India and not established
or continued by the authority of the central government. Criminal procedure code sections
that deal with foreign judgment are Sections 13, Section 14, and Section 44. Section 13
embodies the principles of private international law that a Court will not enforce a foreign
judgment if the judgment is not that of a competent court. The rules laid down under
Section 13 are substantive law, as well, along with being that of procedural law.

Nature And Scope of Sec. 13, C.P.C.

A foreign judgment may operate as res judicata except in the six cases specified in the
section 13 and subject to the other conditions mentioned in Sec. 11 of C.P.C. The rules laid
down in this section are rules of substantive law and not merely of procedure. The fact that
the foreign judgment may fail to show that every separate issue, such as, the status of the
contracting parties, or the measure of damages, was separately framed and decided, is
irrelevant unless it can be shown that failure brings the case within the purview of one of
the exceptions to Section 13.

Object of Section.13 And 14

The judgment of a foreign court is enforced on the principle that where a court of
competent jurisdiction has adjudicated upon a claim, a legal obligation arises to satisfy that
claim. The rules of private international law of each State must in the very nature of things
differ, but by the comity of nations certain rules are recognized as common to civilized
jurisdictions.

Q: REPRESENTATIVE SUITS
A representative suit is one that is filed by or against one or more people on behalf of
themselves and others who have a vested interest in the outcome of the suit.
Representative suit is based on public policy. It saves time, money, labour and prevents
multiplicity of suits. Order 1 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code deals with representative
suits.
As a general rule, all persons interested in a suit should be joined as parties to it so that the
matter involved therein may be finally adjudicated upon and fresh litigation over the same
matter may be avoided. Rule 8 of Order 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) is an exception
to this general rule.
In Diwakar Shrivastava vs the State of Madhya Pradesh (1984), it was stated: “the rule
provides that when there are several persons similarly interested in a suit, one or more of
them can, with the permission of the court or on the direction from the court sue or be
sued on behalf of themselves and others.”
Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC is an enabling provision and does not compel an individual to
represent a body of person having the same interest if his action is maintainable without
joining the rest in the suit.
Essential Elements of Representative Suit
Addition or Substitution of Parties
1. There Should Be Several Parties
The first condition for a representative suit is several parties. The word “several parties”
imply a group of persons and does not mean innumerable persons.
In Hasanali vs Mansoorali (1947), the Privy Council held that a representative suit on behalf
of inhabitants of a village regarding village property or on behalf of the members of the
sect, caste, the community is maintainable under this rule.
2. They Must Have the Same Interest
Community’s interest is the next essential, and it is the condition precedent for bringing a
representative suit. Hence the interest must be common to all, or they must have a
common grievance they seek to redress. It is not necessary that the interest must have
arisen from the same transaction. The explanation clarifies that the person need not have
the same cause of action.

3. Permission or Direction by the Court Is Necessary

The suit does not become a representative suit until the court grants the permission or the
directions have been given by the court. The proper course is that the permission of the
court must be obtained before the suit is filled.
4. Notice Must Be Given
All interested persons who would be bound by the decree shall be given notice. Notice may
be in person or public. In Kumaravelu Chettiar vs T.P. Ramaswami Ayyar (1933), the Privy
Council held that the issue of notice is peremptory, and if it is not given, the decree will
bind only those parties who are on record.

Q: RES JUDICIATA
Meaning of Res Judicata in CPC
The word “res” means subject matter, and the word “judicata” means decided.
Res judicata is the Latin term for a matter judged. It means a thing decided. Section 11 of
the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 talks about the doctrine of res judicata.
Res judicata applies in a case where there has been a final judgment, and it is no longer
subject to appeal. Res judicata can also be used to bar (stop, block) continued litigation of a
case on the same issues between the same parties.
Further, the doctrine of res judicata includes two related concepts:
1. Claim preclusion: Claim preclusion focuses on barring a lawsuit from being brought
again on a legal cause of action that has already been finally decided and resolved
between the parties.
2. Issue preclusion: Issue preclusion prohibits the re-litigation of factual issues that have
already been determined by a judge as a part of an earlier claim.
Definition of the Res Judicata
According to section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, no court has the authority to try any
new lawsuit or matters that have already been resolved in prior litigation between the
same parties. The doctrine of res judicata applies to a case where a decision has been made
that is final and cannot be appealed.
Res Judicata Is Based on 3 Maxims
The doctrine of res judicata is based on three maxims. They are:
1. Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa: It means no man shall be punished
twice for the same offence.
2. Interest Reipublicae Ut Sit Finis Litium: It means it is in the interest of the state that
there should be an end to litigation. Or litigation must come to an end.
3. Res Judicata Pro Veritate Accipitur: It means that a judicial decision must be accepted as
correct.
Conditions for Res Judicata
For the application of the doctrine of res judicata, the following conditions must be
satisfied:
 There must be two lawsuits, one previous and one subsequent. “Previous lawsuit”
means the lawsuit that was decided previously. It makes no difference when the
lawsuit was filed; when the court makes its decision is what matters.
 The parties to both the lawsuits (former lawsuit and subsequent lawsuit) must be the
same.
 The competent court must have finally decided on the former lawsuit/case.
 The matter at issue must be the same in the subsequent suit.
 Parties in both lawsuits must have litigated under the same title, i.e., similar legal
action.
When Res Judicata Does Not Apply
According to the doctrine of res judicata, a new lawsuit can not be brought against any
lawsuit that has already been heard and decided by the competent court. However, there
are certain conditions when a new lawsuit can be brought against any lawsuit that has been
adjudged before, and the doctrine of res judicata would not apply.
The exceptions to the doctrine of res judicata are:
1. Cases Related to Income Tax and Sales Tax
The doctrine of res judicata does not apply to cases related to income tax and sales tax. The
Supreme Court held in Instalment Supply Private Limited vs Union of India (1962) that
each year’s assessment is final for that year and does not apply to succeeding or
subsequent years since it only determines the tax for that particular time frame.
2. Special Leave Petition
The doctrine of res judicata contained in section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code does not
apply when the special leave petition is dismissed without adjudication or decision.
3. Different Causes of Action
The doctrine given under section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code will not be applied when
there is a different cause of action in any subsequent suit.
4. Arbitration Cases
Res judicata does not apply to arbitration cases, and it is at the discretion of the parties to
bring the appeal or not. Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act provides the
provision for the same.
Important: Some sources say that res judicata applies to arbitration proceedings, and some
sources say it doesn’t. It is nowhere accurately mentioned. So, please take this with a pinch
of salt.
5. Writ of Habeas Corpus
The general rule is that the doctrine of res judicata can be applied to writ lawsuits, but it
should not violate any citizen’s fundamental rights. However, the doctrine of res judicata
does not apply to the writ of habeas corpus. Due to the court’s failure to decide on the
issues of the case, a future petition under Article 32 cannot be prevented by dismissing the
initial petition as withdrawn.

Q: PLACE OF SUING
Sec 15 to 21-A deals with the place of suing in which sec 15 deals with pecuniary
jurisdiction Sec 16 to 18 deals with the forum of suing for immovable property sec 19 for
movable sec 20 is a residuary section 21 talks about the waiving of defects while 21 -A talks
about the bar to challenge the decree passed in former suit.

Pecuiniary Jurisdiction:
Sec 15 deals with the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court which claims that the suit have to
be filed within lower competent court, In short that suit didn't have to be filed directly into
the higher court if it can be dealt with district or any other small cause courts. Let us take
an example to understand it in a proper way if the valuation in the suit by plaintiff is 5000 &
it can be dealt by the small cause courts than there is no need to file that case in the higher
court as it will delay the proceedings of the suit that may be dealt in place of it, the
pecuniary jurisdiction of the court have to be deal on the basis of the valuation by plaintiff
not on the basis of ultimate decree, it did not means that court cannot interfere as court
have the power to return under & over value plaint.
Territorial Jurisdiction
For territorial jurisdiction suits may be divided into:
Immovable (16-18)
Movable (19)
Immovable property:
Sec 16 classified certain types of suit for which forum of filing suit is the place where
property is situated the classification of them are:

a. for the recovery of immovable property with or without rent or profits

b. for the partition of immovable property,
c. for foreclosure, sale or redemption in the case of a mortgage of or charge upon
immovable property,
d. for the determination of any other right to or interest in immovable property,
e. for compensation for wrong to immovable property,
f. for the recovery of movable property actually under distraint or attachment, shall be
instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is
situate.
what if the property falls within the local limits of two courts sec 17 deals with the
same & makes it easy for plaintiff to file a plaint in any forum where property or part
of property is situated, Sec18 talks about the jurisdiction of the court when it is
uncertain, in that case it will be filed in any court by satisfying the court about its
jurisdiction to deal with the case, if the court satisfied than its decree passed in a suit
will take affect as any normal decree passed by the court.
Movable property:
The movable property is based on the principle mobilia sequuntur personam which means
that personal property of a person have to be treated in a same way as the person, a suit
for the wrong to person movable property have to be instituted at the option of the
plaintiff either at the place where wrong is committed or at the place where defendant is
residing.

Forum shopping:
Forum shopping is one of the important topic in CPC in which supreme court barred the
plaintiff to file a suit in a place or in a forum which have no jurisdiction to deal with the
plaint which was filed by the plaintiff in order to manoeuvering the suit, Let us take an
example to understand it in a better way if the wrong was done at delhi the suit for the
same can��t be filed at any other state or place.

Objection as to proceedings:
Objection as to suit & proceeding was defined under sec 21 of CPC, The objection to the
suit may be classified into different types which are as following:
 Territorial:
Which means that suit of the CPC have to be filed with in the place at which the
 wrong was committed not outside the limits of the court.
 
 Pecuniary:
Pecuniary jurisdiction was related to the valuation of the suit every court have the
different pecuinary limits it is important to file a case at the place which have the
power to deal with the certain limits of suit.
 
 Subject matter:
Subject matter is a sine qua non which means that court have to deal with only things
which are falling under the jurisdiction of the law.

The objection as to proceedings have to be filed at the earliest opportunity possible or at

the very first instance, It was a well settled law that jurisdiction of the court is a very much
important thing in any suit, Decree of a court without a jurisdiction is a null as discussed in
the Halsbury's law, no objection as to place of suing can be taken at an appellate or a
revisional stage as stated under sec 21 -a.

Q: SUITS UNDER CPC

Under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, a civil court is competent to try a suit when,
1. The suit is of civil nature.
2. The cognizance of such a suit should not be expressly or impliedly barred.
What Is Suit of Civil Nature
In the suit, if the principal question relates to the determination of a civil right, then the
suit is of a civil nature. The expression suit of civil nature covers the private rights and
obligations of a citizen. If the principal question relates to caste or religion, it is not a suit of
civil nature.
The following can be held to be suits of civil nature:
1. Suits for damages for breach of contract.
2. Suits for specific relief.
3. Suits for conjugal rights.
4. Suits for the right of worship.
5. Suits for rent and so on.
Some suits that are not of civil nature are:
1. Suits involving purely religious rites.
2. Suits for mere dignity or honour.
3. Suits against compulsion from caste and so on.
What Is Suit Expressly Barred?
When a suit is barred by an enactment or act in force, then such a suit is said to be
expressly barred.
For example, some of the matters that are expressly barred from the cognizance of a civil
court are matters falling under revenue courts, special tribunals like an industrial tribunal,
rent tribunal, labour tribunal.
But in case the remedy provided by statute is not adequate, then a person is not barred
from taking the case to the jurisdiction of a civil court.
What Is Suit Impliedly Barred?
When a suit is barred by the general principles of law, then such a suit is said to be
impliedly barred.
For example, political questions belong in the domain of the public administrative law and
not the jurisdiction of a civil court. If there is a dispute of a political nature, a civil court has
no authority to adjudicate such matters.

Suits by or against Government or public officers in their official

Sec 79-82
capacity

Sec 83- Suits by aliens and by or against foreign rulers, ambassadors, and
87A envoys  

Sec 87B The suit against Rulers of former Indian states 

Sec 88 Interpleader 

Sec 89  Arbitration 

Sec 90 Special case

Sec 91-93 Public nuisances and other wrongful acts affecting the public 

Q: SPLITTING OF CLAIMS
Splitting of Claim [Order II, Rule 2]:
(1) Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in
respect of the cause of action; but a plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim in
order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any court.
(2) Where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of
his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished.
(3) A person entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue
for all or any of such reliefs; but if he omits, except with the leave of the court, to sue for all
such reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted.
Explanation:
For the purpose of this rule an obligation and collateral security for its performance and
successive claims arising under the same obligation shall be deemed respectively to
constitute but one cause of action.
Illustration:
A lets a house to B at a yearly rent of Rs. 1200. The rent for the whole of the years 1905,
1906 and 1907 is due and unpaid. A sues B in 1908 only for the rent due for 1906. A shall
not afterwards sue B for the rent due for 1905 or 1907.

Q: JOINDER OF PARTIES
JOINDER of Parties in CPC:
There is constantly an apprehension while filing a civil suit as if all the parties of the suit
have been taken into consideration for an account or not. In addition, if any party or parties
are missing, can be taken into consideration and can be added or joined later in a suit as
another issue. provided, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 have a remedy to add party or
parties to the suit (missing) by the process of the “JOINDER” of parties in cpc and the rest
depends upon the discretion of the court under  Order 1 rule 2 and order 1 rule 3 and this
has to be read with the other provisions of the act that orders 2 rule 3 and rule 4 of the civil
procedure code, 1908.
The order I Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 states that:
“1. Who may be joined as plaintiffs
All persons may be joined in one suit as plaintiffs where
(a) any right to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same act or transaction or series of
acts or transactions is alleged to exist in such persons, whether jointly, severally or in the
alternative; and
(b) If such persons brought separate suits, any common question of law or fact would
arise.”
These above-mentioned provisions of the code of civil procedure, 1908 have been
explained by the range of landmark judgment. One of the famous judgments given by the
Indian court before the independence of India in this regard in the year 1935 from Calcutta
High Court in the case of Haru Bepari and Ors. vs. Roy Kshitish Bhusan Roy Bahadur and
Ors. By J. Khundkar, in the case, the court held that the situation in the present case which
makes the joinder of more parties or plaintiff which are permissible within the ambit of rule
1 of order 1 of code of civil procedure 1908, this does not make necessary to imply or
render that there shouldn't be only one cause of action present in the suit filed, and further
in the suit there can be many parties as a plaintiff to join as a joinder(or joinder of parties in
cpc).
The joinder of party or parties has neither affected the opposite party in any manner nor
caused any difficulties or hindrances contemplation of the pleadings.
The harmonious construction of Joinder between Order 1 rule 1 with rule 3 of order 2 of
CPC, 1908, the problems between these two has been resolved as the rule 3 of order 2
reads as follows: causes of action of Joinder of parties in cpc-
1. Save as otherwise provided, a plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of
action against the same defendant, or the same defendants jointly; and any plaintiff’s
having causes of action in which they are jointly interested against the same
defendant or the same defendants jointly may unite such causes of action in the
same suit.
2. Where causes of action are united, the jurisdiction of the Court as regards the suit
shall depend on the amount or value of the aggregate subject-matters at the date of
instituting the suit.”
As mentioned above it clarifies that any party or parties which are not joined in the suit can
be joined as joinder of the suit if the court deems fit subject to the discretion. As rule 3 of
order 2 of code of civil procedure was further explained by the Hon'ble SC in the year 2017
in the landmark judgement of Kazimunnisa vs. Zakia Sultana Case, the Supreme Court held
that this case was the most appropriate case where the provisions of the code of civil
procedure, 1908 under rule 3 of order 2 which revolves around the joinder’s cause of
action. 
As the court has merged the two cases having the same facts and issues by taking the suo-
moto action as both the cases fully attributes and satisfy the rule 3 of order 2 of the code of
civil procedure,1908. The view of the Supreme Court has been recognized by the various
High Courts all over the country.
In Addition to the above, it can also be accorded that whenever the same cause of action
arises from the act of the defendant or opposite party/parties, the complainant or the
plaintiff can come together and can become the joinder of the suit and file a single suit
against the respondent or defendant. As in every case the plaintiff and the joinder of the
party/parties have to be dependent on the discretion or satisfaction of the court.

Joinder of causes of action and parties

[2-3400] Causes of action
A plaintiff may join more than one cause of action when:
 he or she sues in the same capacity and claims the defendant to be liable in the same
capacity in respect of each cause of action: UCPR r 6.18(1)(a),
 he or she sues as an executor or administrator in respect of one or more causes of
action and in his or her own capacity with reference to the estate of the same
deceased person in respect of the remaining causes of action: r 6.18(1)(b),
 he or she claims the defendant to be liable as executor or administrator in respect of
one or more causes of action and in his or her own personal capacity in relation to
the estate of the same deceased person in respect of the remaining causes of action:
r 6.18(1)(c), or
 the court grants leave for all the causes of action to be dealt with in the same
proceedings: r 6.18(1)(d). Leave may be granted before or after the originating
process is filed: r 6.18(2).