Section 21A of CPC, 1908 was inserted in 1976 to bar a suit to set aside a decree on the ground of objection as to the place of suing. This means that even if a defendant could have raised an objection to the jurisdiction of the court in which the suit was filed, he cannot challenge the decree passed by that court on the ground of jurisdiction.
This provision is important because it prevents the defendant from relitigating the issue of jurisdiction and delaying the proceedings. It also ensures that the decrees passed by courts are final and certain.
Procedure under Section 21A of CPC
If a defendant has a valid objection to the jurisdiction of the court in which the suit is filed, he must raise the objection in the written statement. If he fails to do so, he will be deemed to have waived his objection.
If the defendant raises an objection to the jurisdiction of the court, the court will decide the issue of jurisdiction before proceeding with the suit. If the court finds that it does not have jurisdiction, it will dismiss the suit.
If the court finds that it has jurisdiction, it will proceed with the suit. The defendant cannot challenge the decree passed by the court on the ground of jurisdiction.
Important points to note on Section 21A of CPC
- Section 21A of CPC applies to all suits, regardless of the nature of the suit.
- The defendant cannot challenge the decree passed by the court on the ground of jurisdiction, even if he had a valid objection to the jurisdiction of the court.
- The defendant can only challenge the decree passed by the court on the ground of jurisdiction if he has raised the objection in the written statement and the court has found that it does not have jurisdiction.
Conclusion: Section 21A of CPC
Section 21A of CPC is an important provision that prevents the defendant from relitigating the issue of jurisdiction and delaying the proceedings. It also ensures that the decrees passed by courts are final and certain.
Examples : Section 21A of CPC
Here are some examples of situations where Section 21A of CPC can be applied:
- A resident of Delhi enters into a contract with a resident of Mumbai. The contract is performed in Mumbai. The resident of Mumbai files a suit for breach of contract against the resident of Delhi in a court in Mumbai. The resident of Delhi does not raise any objection to the jurisdiction of the court in the written statement. The court passes a decree in favor of the resident of Mumbai. The resident of Delhi cannot challenge the decree on the ground of jurisdiction.
- A resident of Delhi publishes a defamatory article about a resident of Mumbai in a newspaper that is published in Delhi. The resident of Mumbai files a suit for defamation against the resident of Delhi in a court in Delhi. The resident of Delhi raises an objection to the jurisdiction of the court in the written statement. The court finds that it has jurisdiction and proceeds with the suit. The court passes a decree in favor of the resident of Mumbai. The resident of Delhi cannot challenge the decree on the ground of jurisdiction.
- A resident of Delhi purchases a product online from a company that is located in Mumbai. The product is defective. The resident of Delhi files a suit for compensation against the company in a court in Delhi. The company raises an objection to the jurisdiction of the court in the written statement. The court finds that it does not have jurisdiction and dismisses the suit. The resident of Delhi cannot challenge the decree on the ground of jurisdiction.
These are just a few examples of situations where Section 21A of CPC can be applied. It is important to note that the provision applies to all suits, regardless of the nature of the suit.
Here are some case laws on Section 21A of CPC, 1908:
Guda Vijayalaxmi v. Guda Ramchandra Sekhara Sastry (2004) 10 SCC 9:
In this case, the Supreme Court held that Section 21A of the CPC is a mandatory provision and the court cannot ignore it. The court also held that the provision applies to all suits, regardless of the nature of the suit.
Samarth Health Care v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2014) 11 SCC 596:
In this case, the Supreme Court held that the objection to the jurisdiction of the court must be raised in the written statement. If the defendant fails to do so, he will be deemed to have waived his objection.
Tara Prasad Sonkar v. Binod Devi (2022) SCC Online All 347:
In this case, the Supreme Court held that the defendant cannot challenge the decree passed by the court on the ground of jurisdiction, even if he had a valid objection to the jurisdiction of the court.
Katamberi Chuzhali Bhagavati v. Valia Ramunni (2010) 7 SCC 659:
In this case, the Supreme Court held that the provision applies even if the defendant has not raised the objection to the jurisdiction of the court in the written statement.
Smt. Mani v. Kishan Lal (1996) 6 SCC 667:
In this case, the Supreme Court held that the provision is not applicable if the court has no inherent jurisdiction.
These are just a few examples of case laws on Section 21A of CPC. It is important to note that the provision is a recent amendment to the CPC and there is not much case law on it. However, the case laws that are available suggest that the provision is interpreted strictly and that the defendant cannot challenge the decree passed by the court on the ground of jurisdiction, even if he had a valid objection to the jurisdiction of the court.