Introduction

Section 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure entails about the situation where there exists, the allegations that the jurisdiction of two or more courts is uncertain due to the reason that two or more courts have the same jurisdiction over the subjected property.

The provision ordains that the decree of the court will have the same force as what could have been when the if property was situated within the local limits of the jurisdiction.

Section 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908

18. Place of institution of suit where local limits of jurisdiction of Courts are uncertain—

(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 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.

Landmark Judgements

Abdullah v Asraf

The words “and there has been a consequent failure of justice” were inserted in the Code of 1908 to prevent the taking of technical objection to jurisdiction. There must be reasonable ground as to uncertainty of jurisdiction. Objection should not be allowed to be taken at the appellate stage.

Md vs Md

Appellate court will not interfere unless there was, at the time, no reasonable ground for uncertainty as to jurisdiction and there has been consequent failure of justice.

Conclusion

In furtherance to the aforesaid the above entailed provision narrates the tale of fairness and equity in its very essence.