Section 9 CPC — Courts to Try All Civil Suits

Section Text

Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 states: "The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred."

The Explanation appended to the section further provides: "A suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of a civil nature, notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of questions as to religious rites or ceremonies."

Plain Language Explanation

Section 9 is one of the foundational provisions of Indian civil law. It enshrines a broad and expansive principle: every person has a right to approach a civil court for the resolution of any dispute of a civil nature, unless there is a specific law that bars the court from hearing that particular type of case.

Think of it as a default rule of access to justice. The civil court's door is always open unless a statute has specifically shut it for a particular kind of dispute. This section does not grant jurisdiction — rather, it presumes jurisdiction and places the burden on the party objecting to demonstrate that jurisdiction is barred.

The term "suit of a civil nature" is interpreted broadly to include every suit where the principal question relates to the determination of a civil right. This encompasses disputes relating to property, contracts, torts, family matters, and virtually any private right. Even disputes involving religious rites or ceremonies are covered if the underlying claim is about a right to property or an office.

The phrase "expressly or impliedly barred" is critical. Express bar means a statute explicitly states that the civil court shall have no jurisdiction over certain matters (for example, certain revenue matters under state revenue codes). Implied bar means that although no statute explicitly ousts civil court jurisdiction, the legislative scheme creates such a comprehensive alternative remedy that the jurisdiction of civil courts is deemed excluded by necessary implication.

Key Elements

**1. Suits of a Civil Nature**

A suit is of a civil nature if it involves a determination of civil rights. It includes disputes about property, contracts, personal rights, status, and obligations. However, purely political or public law questions that do not involve any private right may not fall within "civil nature." Disputes of a purely criminal nature are also excluded.

**2. Presumption of Jurisdiction**

The section creates a presumption in favour of jurisdiction. The civil court is presumed to have jurisdiction to try a suit unless it is shown that its cognizance is barred. The burden of proving that the bar exists lies on the party who asserts it.

**3. Express Bar**

An express bar exists when a statute in clear and explicit language excludes the jurisdiction of civil courts. For example, certain labour statutes provide that disputes between employers and employees shall be decided by labour courts or tribunals, and expressly bar civil courts from entertaining such suits.

**4. Implied Bar**

An implied bar arises when the legislative scheme, though not expressly excluding civil court jurisdiction, provides for an alternative forum with comprehensive powers to decide the dispute, and the scheme is so self-contained that allowing a parallel civil suit would defeat its purpose. Courts are cautious in inferring implied bars, as the right to approach a civil court is a valuable right that should not be lightly taken away.

**5. The Explanation — Religious Disputes**

The Explanation clarifies that even when a dispute involves questions of religious rites or ceremonies, the civil court has jurisdiction if the underlying claim is about a right to property or to an office. This ensures that disputes dressed in religious garb but fundamentally about civil rights remain justiciable.

Practical Application

**Testing Jurisdiction**: When a defendant challenges the jurisdiction of a civil court, the court must first determine whether the suit is of a civil nature. If it is, the court then examines whether any express or implied bar applies. Unless a bar is clearly established, the court must proceed to hear the suit.

**Alternative Remedies**: The existence of an alternative remedy (such as a tribunal or statutory authority) does not automatically bar civil court jurisdiction. The court examines whether the alternative remedy is adequate, efficacious, and whether the statute creating the alternative forum expressly or impliedly ousts civil court jurisdiction.

**Declaratory and Injunction Suits**: Many suits seeking declarations of rights or injunctions are entertained by civil courts under Section 9. Unless a specific statute channels such claims to a different forum, the civil court retains jurisdiction.

**Revenue and Tenancy Matters**: In many states, revenue and tenancy disputes are decided by special tribunals or revenue courts, and state legislation expressly bars civil courts from entertaining such disputes. These are common examples of express bars.

**Service Matters**: Disputes relating to government employment are generally handled by administrative tribunals under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. However, the scope of the bar and the adequacy of the alternative remedy have been subjects of judicial scrutiny.

Important Judgments

**1. Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1968) 3 SCR 662**

The Supreme Court laid down seven principles governing the exclusion of civil court jurisdiction. Key among them: the civil court's jurisdiction is always presumed unless expressly or impliedly excluded; even where jurisdiction is excluded, the civil court can examine whether the statutory tribunal acted within its powers; and provisions for finality of orders do not, by themselves, exclude civil court jurisdiction.

**2. Raja Ram Kumar Bhargava v. Union of India (1988) 1 SCC 681**

The Supreme Court reiterated that the exclusion of civil court jurisdiction is not to be readily inferred. There must be adequate and satisfactory alternative remedies before a court concludes that civil jurisdiction is impliedly barred.

**3. Kamala Mills Ltd. v. State of Bombay (1965) 1 SCR 262**

The Court held that the civil court has jurisdiction unless a clear and unambiguous provision takes away that jurisdiction. Mere conferral of jurisdiction on another tribunal does not, by itself, divest the civil court of its power.

**4. Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar (1974) 2 SCC 393**

The Supreme Court observed that Section 9 is a provision of general applicability and enshrines the fundamental principle that access to civil courts cannot be denied unless a statute clearly so provides.

**5. Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke (1976) 1 SCC 496**

The Court laid down guidelines for determining when civil court jurisdiction is impliedly barred in the context of industrial disputes. It held that if the dispute is an industrial dispute or relates to enforcement of rights under the Industrial Disputes Act, the civil court's jurisdiction is impliedly barred.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Section 9 apply to all types of disputes?

Section 9 applies to all suits of a civil nature. A suit is of a civil nature if it primarily involves the determination of civil rights — rights relating to property, contract, personal status, or private obligations. Purely criminal matters, political questions, or claims that do not involve any enforceable civil right are not covered. However, the scope of "civil nature" is interpreted broadly, and courts lean towards accepting jurisdiction unless there is a clear reason to decline.

Can a civil court hear a case if a tribunal has been set up for that subject?

The mere establishment of a tribunal for a particular subject does not automatically oust the jurisdiction of civil courts. The key question is whether the statute establishing the tribunal expressly or impliedly bars civil court jurisdiction. If the statute explicitly states that the civil court shall have no jurisdiction, the bar is clear. If there is no explicit bar, the court examines whether the legislative scheme is so comprehensive that civil court jurisdiction is impliedly excluded. In doubtful cases, the presumption favours civil court jurisdiction.

What is the difference between express bar and implied bar?

An express bar exists when a statute clearly and unambiguously states that civil courts shall not have jurisdiction over certain matters. For example, Section 9-A of the Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act expressly bars civil court jurisdiction over industrial disputes. An implied bar is inferred from the overall scheme of a statute, even though there is no explicit exclusion clause. Courts look at factors such as whether the statute provides a complete mechanism for dispute resolution, whether the alternative forum has comprehensive powers, and whether allowing civil suits would undermine the statutory scheme. Implied bars are established with caution.

If the civil court's jurisdiction is barred, does the affected person have no remedy?

Not necessarily. When civil court jurisdiction is barred, it is typically because the legislature has provided an alternative forum — such as a tribunal, statutory authority, or special court — to decide the dispute. The affected person can approach that alternative forum. Moreover, even when civil court jurisdiction is barred over the merits of a dispute, the civil court may still examine whether the alternative tribunal acted within its powers and in conformity with fundamental principles of justice.

---

*This content is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on specific situations, consulting a qualified legal professional is recommended.*