Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 lays down a basic rule of civil litigation: “Every suit shall be instituted in the court of the lowest grade competent to try it”.
The underlying object of Section 15 is not to overburden higher courts with suits which can be tried by courts of lower grade. Section 15 is a rule of procedure and regulates where the suit should be filed at the threshold. The Section recognises that courts or more than one court would have jurisdiction to try a suit and, therefore, uses the expression `the court of the lowest grade’.
Where a suit which ought to be instituted in a court of lower grade is instituted in a court of higher grade?
Section 15 does not mean that the higher court becomes inherently incompetent merely because the suit could have been filed in a lower court. If a suit which ought to have been instituted in a court of lower grade is filed in a court of higher grade, the higher court may examine the issue and, if necessary, return the plaint for presentation before the proper court. The higher court may also, in an appropriate case, try the suit itself. The rule is therefore procedural in nature.
Where a suit which ought to be instituted in a court of higher grade is instituted in a court of lower grade?
The position is different where a suit which ought to have been instituted in a court of higher grade is filed in a court of lower grade. In such a case, the lower court ought to return the plaint for presentation before the proper court. If the lower court nevertheless proceeds with the suit despite lack of competence, the defect is serious because the matter was not instituted in the proper court at all.
Plaintiff’s Valuation – Overvaluation and Undervaluation
It is the valuation in the plaint that determines jurisdiction, the averments made in the written statement generally being irrelevant to the question of jurisdiction. However, it is settled principle that although the plaintiff`s valuation of a suit determines the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, such valuation of claims cannot be arbitrary. The object of Section 15 of the Code is to prevent superior courts from being flooded or over-crowded with suits triable by the inferior courts. The Section primarily regulates the procedure and not "jurisdiction".
That is where Section 15 becomes important in practice. If the plaintiff is allowed to overvalue or undervalue the suit merely to enter a preferred forum, the section becomes meaningless. The court is not expected to permit that. If the defect is apparent on the face of the plaint, the plaint should be returned. Even where the defect is not obvious, the court can require the plaintiff to justify the valuation if a real objection is raised.
Section 15 governs the correctness of institution at the start
Another important distinction must be kept clear. There is a difference between the proper institution of a suit at the beginning and a later statutory change in pecuniary jurisdiction. A suit may be properly instituted on the date it is filed, and a later amendment in law may alter which court will try it thereafter. The two questions are not the same. Section 15 governs the correctness of institution at the start.
Section 15 is the first checkpoint of civil procedure. The suit must begin in the correct court, on a defensible valuation, and on a proper jurisdictional footing. If that discipline is ignored, the litigation starts badly and usually becomes slower, costlier, and procedurally vulnerable.
References:
- C.K. Takwani, Civil Procedure with Limitation Act, 1963, EBC, 8th Edition.
- Subhashini Malik v. S.K. Gandhi & Ors., Delhi High Court 2016 LAWPACK(Del) 60218: 2016(233) DLT 83: 2016(160) DRJ 1.
- Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 (SC) 340: (1955) I SCR 117
Disclaimer
This Article is issued solely for general legal awareness and academic discussion. It is not legal advice, does not create an advocate–client relationship, and must not be treated as a substitute for case-specific professional consultation. Readers are advised to consult a qualified legal professional before acting upon any part of this publication.
While every reasonable care has been taken to ensure accuracy and reliability, Aggarwal Gupta and Associates makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, as to completeness or correctness. The Firm does not assume responsibility for any errors or omissions that may nevertheless occur and disclaims all liability for any loss, damage, or consequences arising from any person acting or refraining from acting on the basis of the information contained herein.
Written By:
Aditi Sharma, Advocate, D/3176/2022
Mobile No. 8588876746
Email: aga.justice@gmail.com