A

PROJECT WORK ON

Discuss the Pecuniary Jurisdiction of Civil Courts

Project submitted to

Dr. Parvesh Kumar Rajput (Faculty: Code of Civil Procedure)

Project submitted by

Shubhankar Thakur

Semester -IX

ROLL NO. 149

SECTION- C

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

RAIPUR, C.G.

1|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Topic

1. Acknowledgements

2. Objectives

3. Research Methodology

4. Introduction

5. Jurisdiction of A Civil Court:Sec-9

6. Factors affecting Jurisdiction

7. Pecuniary Jurisdiction (section 15)

6. Objection to pecuniary jurisdiction

7. Territorial Jurisdiction

8. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

9. Conclusion

10. References

2|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I feel highly elated to work on the topic “Discuss the Pecuniary Jurisdiction of Civil Courts”
because it has significant importance in the studying the Code of Civil Procedure. The practical
realization of this project has obligated the assistance of many persons. I would like to thank our
faculty especially Dr. Parvesh Kumar Rajput Sir that he gave me an opportunity to do work on
this project & for his valuable guidance & support.

I would also like to thank the University & the Vice Chancellor for providing extensive database
resources in the library & through internet.

I would be grateful to receive comments & suggestions for further improvement of this project
report.

- Shubhankar Thakur
- Sem IX
- Roll No. 149

3|Page
 OBJECTIVES

1. To discuss the pecuniary jurisdiction of civil courts .

2. To discuss the circumstances where there is objection on pecuniary jurisdiction.
3. To elaborate and understand the Jurisdiction of Civil Courts (Section 9)

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The objective of this project is to understand the pecuniary jurisdiction of civil courts, so the
major sources of literature have been articles, research papers of academicians and reports of
various international organizations committed to bring an end to counterfeiting.

This is a doctrinal research which is descriptive and analytical in nature. Footnotes have been
provided wherever needed, to acknowledge the source.

Books Referred

Takwani, C.K.; “Civil Procedure (CPC) with Limitation Act, 1963”; 7th Edition Eastern Book
Company
Jain, M.P.; “The Code of Civil Procedure”; 2nd Edition; Wadhwa and Company

4|Page
Introduction
Jurisdiction is the practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or to a political
leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer
justice within a defined area of responsibility. The term is also used to denote the geographical
area or subject-matter to which such authority applies.

In the light of the ‘Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium’ a latin maxim which means where there is a right there
is a remedy. The word ‘Jus’ means the legal authority to do or demand something, and the word
‘remedium’ means the right of action in a Court of law.

The fundamental principle of English Law that wherever there is a right, there is a remedy, has
been adopted by the Indian legal system. It means, whenever the rights of a person is infringed or
curtailed or the person is stopped by anyone in enjoying the rights so guaranteed to him, there
must be some judicial forum having authority to adjudicate on the matter and the rights so
guaranteed should be restored or compensated as per the case.

To get the rights restored or claiming compensation or damage sustained, person has to approach
the appropriate forum, which has the authority to adjudicate on the matter and award the relief so
sought. So, the forum must have jurisdiction to deal with that matter.

Jurisdiction generally means the power or authority of the court of law to hear and determine a
cause or a matter. In other words, jurisdiction is meant the authority which a court has to decide
matter that are litigated before it or to take cognizance of matters presented in a formal way for
its decision.

The extent of jurisdiction will be determined with reference to the subject-matter, pecuniary
value and the local limits. So, while the question of jurisdiction of a court is determined, the
nature of the case, the pecuniary value of the suit, and the territorial limitation of the court need
to be taken into consideration.

Not only that, there may be a situation wherein the forum approached may have competency to
deal with the subject-matter, the suit is falling well within the pecuniary limitation and within the
local limits assigned with that court as well, but if the court is not competent to grant the relief

5|Page
sought then also the court cannot be considered as the court having jurisdiction as observed in
Official Trustee V. Sachindra Nath1; the supreme court observed:

“That before a court can be held to have jurisdiction to decide a particular matter it must not
only have jurisdiction to try the suit brought but must also have the authority to pass the order
sought for.”

The nature of the offence determines whether court of Civil Judicature or Criminal Judicature
will be the one who will have jurisdiction over the matter. If the offence is of civil nature it will
follow the hierarchy of the Civil Courts. When it comes to Civil Judicature, the jurisdiction of
the Court is divided on the basis of their Pecuniary Jurisdiction and Territorial Jurisdiction.

1
AIR 1969 SC 823

6|Page
Civil Court and Code of Civil Procedure

The term ‘Civil Court’ has not been defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or in any other
law in force in the country. In Ganguli Engineering Limited v. Smt. Sushila Dasi2 the Calcutta
High Court held that “Any Tribunal or functionary exercising 'judicial functions and,
adjudicating disputes not 'relating to crimes should be taken to be a civil court." The expression
‘civil court’ includes all courts of civil judicature whose procedure is in essence governed by the
Civil Procedure Code.

Civil Courts try suits of civil nature. In Section 9 of the CPC, the word ‘civil nature’ is wider
than the word ‘civil proceeding’. The section would be available in every case where the dispute
has the characteristic of affecting one’s rights which are not only civil but of civil nature. The
expression ‘civil proceeding’ used under Article 133(1) of the Constitution of India is wide
enough to cover any proceeding of a civil nature decided by the High Court, whether in its
original appellate or revisional jurisdiction. A proceeding under Article 226 for a writ to bring up
a proceeding for consideration must be a civil proceeding, if the original proceeding concerned
civil rights3.

A civil proceeding would also be one where a person seeks to enforce by appropriate relief the
alleged infringement of his civil rights against another person or the State, and if the claim is
proved would result in the declaration express or implied of the right claimed and relief such as
payment of debt, damages, compensation, delivery of specific property, enforcement of personal
rights, determination of status, etc. A civil suit would be an action bought to enforce, redress, or
protect a private or civil right. Simply stated it is a non-criminal litigation where in a criminal
proceeding may conclude in the imposition of sentences such as death, imprisonment, fine or
forfeiture of property, etc.

2 AIR 1957 Cal 103

3
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1780/Jurisdiction-of-Civil-Court-and-Place-of-Suing.html

7|Page
JURISDICTION

The term ‘jurisdiction’ is not defined in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The word is derived
from the Latin terms ‘juris’ and ‘dicto’ which means “I speak by the law". It is interesting to note
that the jurisdiction is always granted by the Legislature but the power to determine the
jurisdiction vests in the superior Courts. Two meanings of jurisdiction can be analyzed:

(i) The authority or power of a court to entertain and decide on any judicial proceeding,
(ii) (ii) The area over which the power of a court extends.

By jurisdiction is meant authority by which a Court has to decide matters that are litigated before
it, or to take cognizance of matters presented in a formal way for its decisions. The limits of this
authority are imposed by Statute or Charters or Commissions under which the Court is instituted
and may be extended or restricted by similar means. If no restriction or limitation is imposed, the
jurisdiction is said to be unlimited. A limitation may be either as to the kind or nature of the
actions or the matters of which a particular Court has cognizance or as to the area over which the
jurisdiction extends, or it may partake of both these characteristics.

Sometimes jurisdiction is also defined in terms of ‘power’. It is the power of the court to hear
and determine a cause, to adjudicate and to exercise judicial power in relation to it and to award
the remedies provided by law upon a state of facts proved or admitted and presented to the court
in a formal way for its decision4. The concept of jurisdiction thus embraces the power to grant
the remedies provided by law.

Before a court can be held to have jurisdiction to decide a particular matter, it must not only have
jurisdiction to try the suit brought but must also have the authority to pass the orders sought for.
It is not sufficient that it has come within jurisdiction in relation to the subject matter of the suit.
Its jurisdiction must include the power to hear and decide the questions at issue, authority to hear
and decide the particular controversy that has arisen between the parties.

Jurisdiction in its classical concept means the power to hear and determine a dispute, to
adjudicate and exercise any judicial power in relation to it; in other words jurisdiction means the

4
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/commercial-law/civil-court-and-code-of-civil-procedure-
commercial-law-essay.php#ftn2

8|Page
authority by which the Court decides a case that is litigated before it or to take cognizance of a
matter presented in a formal way for its decision.

Therefore, numerous attempts have been made to define what ‘jurisdiction’ really means and all
the views converge to the central meaning that it is the power to hear and determine the
“entitlement to enter upon an enquiry into the question". Regarding this, Lord Denman in R v.
Bolton5 said that the question of jurisdiction is determinable at the commencement, not at the
conclusion of an enquiry.

Since conferring jurisdiction is a legislative function, in the leading case of A. R. Antulay v. R.S.
Nayak6, the Supreme Court stated that, “This Court, by its directions, could not confer
jurisdiction on the High Court of Bombay to try any case for which it did not posses”. Therefore,
it is well known that consent cannot confer nor take away jurisdiction of a court.

Where the Court has jurisdiction, neither consent, nor waiver, nor estoppel, nor acquiescence can
oust it. An agreement to oust absolutely the jurisdiction of a competent court is void because it is
against public policy by the principle “Ex dolo malo non oritur actio” a Latin phrase which
means No action arises on an immoral contract7. But when two or more courts have jurisdiction
to entertain a suit, an agreement by the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of any one of such
court to the exclusion of the rest is valid, binding and enforceable.

Also it is well-settled that for deciding the jurisdiction of a civil court, the averments made in the
plaint are material. In other words, the jurisdiction of a civil court should normally be decided on
the basis of the case out forward by the plaintiff in his plaint and not by the defendant in his
written statement.

The jurisdiction of a court, tribunal or authority may depend upon the fulfilment of certain
conditions or upon existence of a particular fact. This is called jurisdictional fact. The existence
of such a preliminary or collateral fact is a condition precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction
by the authority. If it exists, the authority has jurisdiction and it can act. If the authority wrongly
assumes existence of such fact, a writ of certiorari can be issued.

5
(1841) 1 Q.B. 66
6 1988 AIR 1531
7
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/commercial-law/civil-court-and-code-of-civil-procedure-
commercial-law-essay.php#ftn2

9|Page
Whether a court has jurisdiction or not has to be decided with reference to the initial assumption
of jurisdiction by that court. The question depends on the truth or falsehood of the facts into
which it has to enquire, or upon the correctness of its findings on these facts, but upon their
nature, and it is determinable “at the commencement and not at the conclusion of the enquiry."
Therefore, whenever the jurisdiction of a court is challenged, that court has the inherent
jurisdiction to decide the said question.

Jurisdiction of A Civil Court:Sec-9

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.

[Explanation I].- 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.

[Explanation ll].- For the purposes of this section, it is immaterial whether or not any fees are
attached to the office referred to in Explanation I or whether or not such office is attached to a
particular place.].

As mentioned under sec-9 of the Code, the civil courts have jurisdiction to deal with all matters
provided it is a matter of civil nature and it is not expressly or impliedly barred8.

The word civil is not defined in the Code, however as per dictionary meaning it pertains to the
private rights and remedies as distinguished from criminal and political. The word nature
indicates the fundamental quality of a thing or person, its identity or the essential character.
Hence, the suit of civil nature may be understood as a suit in which the fundamental question for
determination, the matters in controversy primarily relating to the private rights and obligations,
not to be related to political or religious rights and obligations; and if it is so the civil courts have
the jurisdiction provided it is not expressly or impliedly barred.

The court cannot try any suit if its cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. A Suit is
said to be expressly barred if it is barred by any enactment for the time being in force. It is open
to the legislature to bar the jurisdiction of civil court with respect to a particular class of suit
keeping itself within the ambit of power conferred on it by the Constitution of India.

8
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1780/Jurisdiction-of-Civil-Court-and-Place-of-Suing.html

10 | P a g e
The development of the tribunal has taken away the jurisdiction of the civil court with respect to
the subject matter allotted to that tribunal on the first stage, however if any question of law so
raised, or any provision of the act which has so created the tribunal that can be looked into by the
civil court9. Thus, matters falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Courts or
under the Code of Criminal Procedure or matters dealt with by special tribunals under the
relevant statutes, e.g. by Industrial Tribunal, Cooperative Tribunal, Income Tax Tribunal, Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, etc., are expressly barred from the cognizance of the Civil Courts.

A suit is said to be impliedly barred when it is barred by the general principle of law. In fact,
certain suits, though of a civil nature, are barred from the cognizance of a civil court on the
ground of public policy. The principle underlying is that a court ought not to countenance
matters which are injurious to and against the public weal. Thus, no suit shall lie for recovery of
costs incurred in a criminal prosecution or for enforcement of a right upon a contract hit by
Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872; or against any judge for acts done in the course of
his duties, etc.

Factors affecting Jurisdiction

Pecuniary Jurisdiction (section 15): Pecuniary literally means ‘related to money’. Pecuniary
jurisdiction sets the pecuniary limits on the jurisdiction of a court.10 Every court is deemed to
have a certain monetary limit of which it can entertain cases and decide. This is mainly done to
9
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1780/Jurisdiction-of-Civil-Court-and-Place-of-Suing.html
10 “Pecuniary Jurisdiction”, https://www.legallyindia.com/tag/pecuniary-jurisdiction, Accessed on 20 July 2018

11 | P a g e
avoid over-burdening of cases in some courts. However, it should be noted here that pecuniary
limit does not imply that the higher courts cannot hear or entertain cases of lower monetary
value. Districts courts, High courts etc. are given certain monetary limit and can entertain cases
the valuation of which falls within their pecuniary jurisdiction. With changing time and scenario,
the threshold pecuniary limits may also be changed. In the month of May 2018 an ordinance to
widen the pecuniary jurisdiction of commercial courts was notified.11

Courts will have jurisdiction only over those suits the amount or value of the subject-matter of
which does not exceed the pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction. Some courts have unlimited
pecuniary jurisdiction, e.g., High Courts and District Courts have no pecuniary limitations.

As per Section 6 of CPC, every Court will have jurisdiction over those disputes which are within
its pecuniary limit and every suit has to be filed in the lowest grade competent to try it. This
pecuniary jurisdiction is decided on the basis of the value of the suit. After valuation, the Court
having pecuniary jurisdiction as well as the territorial jurisdiction over the matter can try the
suit12.

For e.g.: A dispute between A and B took place in a certain village of Agra. The value of the suit
is 2 crore. Then, it has to be seen that in this case the pecuniary jurisdiction lies with the District
Court of Agra which also has territorial jurisdiction in that particular village; and hence in this
case the court of lowest grade competent to try this suit will be District Court of Agra.

The plaintiff needs to mention in its plaint the facts which show that the court has jurisdiction
over the matter in hand. [Order VII Rule 1(f)] These facts will include the valuation of suit as the
pecuniary jurisdiction of any court is decided by the value of the suit.

Court of Small Cause

The Court of Small Causes are established under The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887.
The object of this Act is to consolidate all the laws related to Small Cause Court. In this Act,
under Section 15 (2) it has been directed that all suits of civil nature whose value is not more

11“Ordinance to widen pecuniary jurisdiction of Commercial Courts notified”, http://www.livelaw.in/ordinance-to-widen-

pecuniary-jurisdiction-of-commercial-courts-notified-read-the-notification/, Accessed on 19 July 2018.
12
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1780/Jurisdiction-of-Civil-Court-and-Place-of-Suing.html

12 | P a g e
than five hundred rupees will be cognizable by a Court of Small Causes, subject to local Rules
and Order issued by the High Court.13

District Court - The pecuniary limit of the District Court is decided by the High Court. In case of
Delhi, the pecuniary limit of District Court was Rs. 20 Lakh which after the amendment is
increased to Rs. 2 crore.14

High Court - The original pecuniary jurisdiction of a High Court is for the suits wherein the
value of the matter involved is more than 2 crore.

Objection to pecuniary jurisdiction –

The pecuniary jurisdiction is determined by the value of the suit which the plaintiff determines
and mentions in his plaint. In case of an objection regarding pecuniary jurisdiction of Court, the
trial court will inquire into that and will pass an appropriate order. In case, the objection is being
raised by defendant in an appellate court or a revisional court, there are three conditions given in
Section 21 that needs to be fulfilled and they are:

a) The objection was taken in the court of first instance,

b) At the earliest possible opportunity and in case the issues are settled, before settlement of
issues, and
c) There has to be a consequent failure of justice.

In the case of Pathumma v Kuntalan Kutty15, it was held that, it is necessary that the above
mentioned three conditions must co-exist.

As stated before that every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to
try it. The word competent to try indicates the competency of the court with respect to the
pecuniary jurisdiction. It means, the courts of lowest grade who has the jurisdiction with respect
to pecuniary value shall try the suit at first.

Now, the biggest question is, who will determine the valuation of the suit for the purpose of
determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. In general, it is the valuation done by the

13
https://www.lawfarm.in/blogs/civil-courts-and-their-jurisdiction#_edn1
14 http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=129974 last visited on June 23, 2016.
15 AIR 1981 SC 1683

13 | P a g e
plaintiff is considered for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court,
unless the court from the very face of the suit find it incorrect 16. So, if the court finds that the
valuation done by the plaintiff is not correct, that is either undervalued or overvalued, the court
will do the valuation and direct the party to approach the appropriate forum.

So, prima facie, it is the plaintiff’s valuation in the plaint that determines the jurisdiction of the
court and not the amount for which ultimately decree may be passed. Thus, if the pecuniary
jurisdiction of the court of lowest grade is, say, Rs. 10,000/- and the plaintiff filed a suit for
accounts wherein the plaintiff valuation of the suit is well within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the
court but court latter finds on taking the accounts that Rs. 15,000/- are due, the court is not
deprived of its jurisdiction to pass a decree for that amount.

Usually, a court will accept a valuation of the plaintiff in the plaint and proceed to decide the
matter on merits on that basis, however, that does not mean that plaintiff in all cases are at liberty
to assign any arbitrary value to the suit, and to choose the court in which he wants to file the suit.

If it appears to the court that the valuation is falsely made in the plaint for the purpose of
avoiding the jurisdiction of the proper court, the court may require the plaintiff to prove that the
valuation are proper.

Next important question is the status of decision given by the court who does not have the
pecuniary jurisdiction in the matter. That is, what if the Court proceeded with the matter and later
come to know that it did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction. (The matter will be dealt under
heading – irregular exercise of jurisdiction).

Territorial Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction is the circle or area in which a party has power to do
something. Jurisdiction of a court or a statute means the areas in which that court or statute can
act or make effect.17Territorial jurisdiction is the territorial limit in which the law is applicable or
the court has power to decide upon. Thus, the district court doesn’t have the power to adjudicate
its power beyond a particular district. The High Court has jurisdiction over the whole state and
the apex court can entertain any suite in the territory of India18.

16
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1780/Jurisdiction-of-Civil-Court-and-Place-of-Suing.html
17 “Territorial Jurisdiction: Meaning”, https://definitions.uslegal.com/t/territorial-jurisdiction/, Accessed on 20 July, 2018.
18
https://www.lawfarm.in/blogs/civil-courts-and-their-jurisdiction#_edn1

14 | P a g e
According to section 15 suit is to be instituted before the Court of lowest grade. By virtue of
Section 16 suit in respect of immovable property may be instituted before the court within whose
territorial jurisdiction the property is situate. For such suits, place where cause of action arises or
where defendant resides etc. is wholly irrelevant vide Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. D.L.F.
Universal Ltd.19

Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the nature of the claim or
controversy.20 This means that certain courts are precluded from entertaining suits of particular
nature. For example, a criminal court cannot deal with a case related to civil suit. Thus, a small
cause court can try only such suits as a suit for money due on account of an oral loan or under a
bond or promissory note, a suit for price of work done, etc., but it has no jurisdiction to try suits
for specific performance of contracts for a dissolution of partnership. When the court has no
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit it cannot decide any question on merits. It can
simply decide the question of jurisdiction and coming to the conclusion that it had no jurisdiction
over the matter had to return the plaint.21

Section 21: Objections to jurisdiction

(1) No objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by any appellate or Revisional Court
unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity
and in all cases where issues or settled at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a
consequent failure of justice22.

(2) No objection as to the competence of a Court with reference to the pecuniary limits of its
jurisdiction shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was
taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity, and in all cases where
issues are settled, at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of
justice.

(3) No objection as to the competence of the executing Court with reference to the local limits of
its jurisdiction shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was

19 Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. D.L.F. Universal Ltd., AIR 2005 SC 4446
20 “Subject Matter Jurisdiction”, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/subject_matter_jurisdiction, Accessed on 20 July 2018.
21 Athmanathaswami Devasthanam v. K. Gopalaswami Ayyangar, (1964) 3 SCR 763: (1964) 1 MLJ SC 42
22
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1780/Jurisdiction-of-Civil-Court-and-Place-of-Suing.html

15 | P a g e
taken in the executing Court at the earliest possible opportunity, and unless there has been a
consequent failure of justice.

It is a fundamental rule that a decree of a court without jurisdiction is nullity. Halsbury rightly
states: “where by reason of any limitation imposed by statute, charter or commission, a court is
without jurisdiction to entertain any particular action or matter, neither the acquiesce nor the
express consent of the parties can confer jurisdiction upon the court nor can consent give a court
jurisdiction if a condition which goes to the root of the jurisdiction has not been performed or
fulfilled.”23

However, this does not apply to territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction. In case an error is committed
by the court in exercising the jurisdiction with respect to pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction, the
decision so given will not be void, it will be considered as irregular exercise of jurisdiction. No
doubt, party has a right to raise the issue but at the earliest possible time and once the court
proceeded with the matter and given the decision the same cannot be raised at the appellate stage
at all as observed in the case of Kiran Singh V. Chaman Paswan24,.

However, when the error is committed by the court with respect to subject-matter jurisdiction,
the decision so given by the court is null and void as it falls within the ambit of lack of
jurisdiction. And the issue of such error can validly be raised at any stage of the proceedings,
even at the appellate level as well

23
https://www.lawfarm.in/blogs/civil-courts-and-their-jurisdiction#_edn1
24
AIR 1954 SC 340

16 | P a g e
 Conclusion

Conferring jurisdiction is a legislative function. Exercise of jurisdiction is the Court’s function.

Even enquiry into the existence of jurisdiction is also for the Courts to decide. Jurisdiction
should not be confused with a decision. Even if a competent court has jurisdiction, it may decide
a case rightly or wrongly which can be challenged only in appeal on the grounds of its
correctness and validity and not on the grounds as to jurisdiction.

REFERENCES

http://www.burdwanbarassociation.in/files/THE%20PROVINCIAL%20SMALL%20CAUSE%2
0COURTS%20ACT,%201887.pdf last visited on June 24, 2016
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/jurisdiction-of-civil-court-and-place-of-suing-
1780-1.html last visited on June 24, 2016
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/jurisdiction-of-civil-court-under-civil-
procedure-code-508-1.html last visited on June 24, 2016

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Takwani, C.K.; “Civil Procedure (CPC) with Limitation Act, 1963”; 7th Edition Eastern Book
Company
Jain, M.P.; “The Code of Civil Procedure”; 2nd Edition; Wadhwa and Company

17 | P a g e