CPC, 1908 · Part I · Place of Suing
Place of institution of suit where local limits of jurisdiction of Courts are uncertain
When it’s genuinely unclear which court’s area the property is in — the law has a cure.
The bare Act
(1) Where it is alleged to be uncertain within the local limits of the jurisdiction of which of two or more Courts any immovable property is situate, 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, and its decree in the suit shall have the same effect as if the property were situate within the local limits of its jurisdiction:
Provided that the suit is one with respect to which the Court is competent as regards the nature and value of the suit to exercise jurisdiction.
(2) Where a statement has not been recorded under sub-section (1), and an objection is taken before an Appellate or Revisional Court that a decree or order in a suit relating to such property was made by a Court not having jurisdiction where the property is situate, the Appellate or Revisional Court shall not allow the objection unless in its opinion there was, at the time of the institution of the suit, no reasonable ground for uncertainty as to the Court having jurisdiction with respect thereto and there has been a consequent failure of justice.
How to read Section 18
§16/§17 say sue where the property is. But sometimes the boundary between two courts is doubtful and nobody is sure which court the property falls in. §18 stops that doubt from defeating a genuine suit.
Any one of the doubtful courts, if satisfied there is ground for the uncertainty, may record a statement saying so and then try the suit — its decree is as valid as if the property were in its own limits.
If no statement was recorded, a higher court will not upset the decree for want of territorial jurisdiction unless there was no reasonable ground for the doubt and a failure of justice.
The problem, in one picture
The property sits right on the doubtful boundary of Court X and Court Y. §18 lets one of them record the uncertainty and decide the case — so litigants aren’t trapped by an unclear map.
Section 18, sub-section by sub-section
When the property’s court is uncertain, sub-section (1) gives a five-step cure:
- 1
Uncertainty is alleged
A party says it is uncertain within which of two or more courts’ limits the immovable property lies.
- 2
The court is satisfied
Any one of those courts must be satisfied there is ground for the alleged uncertainty — not a mere pretext.
- 3
It records a statement
The court records a statement to that effect — a written note of the genuine doubt.
- 4
It tries the suit
It may then entertain and dispose of any suit relating to that property.
- ✓
The decree is fully valid
Its decree has the same effect as if the property were situate within its own local limits — no later challenge on that ground.
This only works if the court is competent as regards the nature and value of the suit. §18 cures the territorial doubt — it does not give a court subject-matter or pecuniary jurisdiction it never had (§6).
Phrase by phrase
If no statement was recorded under (1) and the loser later objects on appeal/revision, sub-section (2) protects the decree — the objection fails unless BOTH conditions are met:
In the higher court’s opinion, at the time the suit was instituted, there was no reasonable ground for uncertainty about which court had jurisdiction.
The wrong forum actually caused a failure of justice — not a mere technical irregularity.
→ The Appellate / Revisional Court shall NOT allow the objection. The decree stands.
→ The objection may be allowed and the decree disturbed.
Phrase by phrase
This mirrors the policy of §21 and §99 — decrees are not upset for a merely technical defect of place; the challenger must show real prejudice.
The takeaway
§18 protects honest litigants from a doubtful boundary. Do it right at the start — get the court to record the uncertainty under (1), and the decree is unassailable on that ground. Skip that step, and (2) still saves the decree on appeal unless the doubt was unreasonable and caused a failure of justice.
How sub-sections (1) and (2) connect
🗺️ Two answers to one boundary doubt
Record a statement, then proceed
If it is uncertain in which court’s local limits the property lies, a court may record that uncertainty and try the suit — its decree is valid as if the property were within its limits (proviso: it must be competent as to nature & value).
If no statement was recorded
An appellate/revisional court will not allow a “wrong court” objection unless there was no reasonable ground for the uncertainty and a consequent failure of justice.
Connected rules & sections
The base rule §18 protects — sue where the immovable property lies.
Where property knowingly spans several courts; §18 covers the case where it is merely uncertain.
The proviso — §18 cures only the territorial doubt, never want of value/nature competence.
Same policy as §18(2) — place objections fail unless raised early and a failure of justice is shown.
A decree is not set aside for a jurisdictional/procedural slip unless it caused a failure of justice.
The court that records the statement must still be the right grade for the suit.
The plaint must describe the property — the very thing that becomes uncertain here.
The statement is the safe route — it makes the decree immune on the territorial ground.