Section 18 of CPC, 1908 Section 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) deals with the situation where it is uncertain within the local limits of the jurisdiction of which of two or more courts any immovable property is situate. In such a case, any one of those courts may, if satisfied that there is ground for the alleged uncertainty, record a statement to that effect and thereupon proceed to entertain and dispose of any suit relating to that property. The decree of the court in such a suit shall have the same effect as if the property were situate within the local limits of its jurisdiction.
This provision is important because it ensures that there is a forum for the adjudication of suits relating to immovable property even where there is uncertainty about the local limits of jurisdiction. It also prevents the multiplicity of suits by allowing any one of the courts having jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the suit.
Procedure under Section 18 of CPC
The following is the procedure to be followed under Section 18 of CPC:
- The plaintiff must file an application in the court of his choice, alleging that it is uncertain within the local limits of the jurisdiction of which of two or more courts the immovable property is situate.
- The court will then issue a notice to the defendant and other interested parties, and hold a hearing to determine whether there is ground for the alleged uncertainty.
- If the court is satisfied that there is ground for the alleged uncertainty, it will record a statement to that effect and proceed to entertain and dispose of the suit.
- If the court is not satisfied that there is ground for the alleged uncertainty, it will dismiss the application and allow the plaintiff to file the suit in the appropriate court.
Important points to note
- Section 18 of CPC applies only to suits relating to immovable property. It does not apply to suits relating to movable property or other causes of action.
- The court which records a statement under Section 18 of the CPC must have jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the suit with respect to the nature and value of the suit.
- If a decree is passed by a court under Section 18 of the CPC, and an objection is taken before an appellate or revisional court that the court did not have jurisdiction, the appellate or revisional court shall not allow the objection unless it is of the opinion that there was no reasonable ground for uncertainty as to the court having jurisdiction at the time of the institution of the suit, and that there has been a consequent failure of justice.
Conclusion: Section 18 of CPC, 1908
Section 18 of CPC is an important provision that ensures that there is a forum for the adjudication of suits relating to immovable property even where there is uncertainty about the local limits of jurisdiction. It also prevents the multiplicity of suits by allowing any one of the courts having jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the suit.
Here are some case laws on Section 18 of CPC, 1908:
Karan Singh v. Chaman Paswan (1995) 2 SCC 592:
In this case, the Supreme Court held that Section 18 of the CPC is a remedial provision which should be liberally construed. The court also held that the onus of proving that there is no reasonable ground for uncertainty as to the court having jurisdiction lies on the party raising the objection.
State of U.P. v. Ramesh Chandra Sharma (1997) 1 SCC 435:
In this case, the Supreme Court held that the court which records a statement under Section 18 of the CPC must have jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the suit with respect to the nature and value of the suit. The court also held that a mere allegation of uncertainty is not sufficient to invoke Section 18 of the CPC. The party alleging uncertainty must provide some evidence to support the allegation.
M.M.R.C. v. Patel Brothers (2005) 3 SCC 614:
In this case, the Supreme Court held that the court which records a statement under Section 18 of the CPC must be satisfied that there is a real and genuine uncertainty as to the local limits of jurisdiction. The court also held that the court should not record a statement under Section 18 of the CPC merely on the ground that the parties have agreed to submit the dispute to its jurisdiction.
M/s. Balaji Builders & Developers v. State of Jharkhand (2010) 12 SCC 1:
In this case, the Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction of a court under Section 18 of the CPC is not ousted by the fact that the suit could have been filed in another court which has jurisdiction over the subject matter. The court also held that the court which records a statement under Section 18 of the CPC must exercise its jurisdiction with caution and circumspection.
These are just a few examples of case laws on Section 18 of the CPC. There are many other case laws that have interpreted and applied this provision in different situations.