Jurisdiction Means

The expression “jurisdiction” in this section has not been used in the limited sense of the term, as connoting the “Power” to do or order to do the particular act complained of, but is used in a wide sense as meaning “generally the authority of the Judicial Officer to act in the matters”. Therefore, if the judicial officer had the general authority to enter upon the enquiry into the cause, action, petition or other proceeding in the course of which the impugned act was done or ordered by him in his judicial capacity, the act, even if erroneous, will still be within his ‘jurisdiction’, and the mere fact that it was erroneous will not put it beyond his “jurisdiction”.

Error in the exercise of jurisdiction is not to be confused with lack of jurisdiction in entertaining the cause or proceeding. It follows that if the judicial officer is found to have been acting in the discharge of his judicial duties, then, in order to exclude him from the protection of this statute, the complainant has to establish that (1) the judicial officer complained against was acting without any jurisdiction whatsoever, and (2) he was acting without good faith in believing himself to have jurisdiction.[AIR 1981 SC 755 ]

” 7. Indisputably, it is a settled legal proposition that conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function and it can neither be conferred with the consent of the parties nor by a superior Court, and if the Court passes a decree having no jurisdiction over the matter, it would amount to nullity as the matter goes to the roots of the cause. Such an issue can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. The finding of a Court or Tribunal becomes irrelevant and unenforceable/ inexecutable once the forum is found to have no jurisdiction. Similarly, if a Court/Tribunal inherently lacks jurisdiction, acquiescence of party equally should not be permitted to perpetuate and perpetrate, defeating the legislative animation. The Court cannot derive jurisdiction apart from the Statute. In such eventuality the doctrine of waiver also does not apply. (Vide: United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Their Workmen, MANU/SC/0067/1951: AIR 1951 SC 230. Smt. Nai Bahu v. Lal Ramnarayan & Ors. MANU/0367/1977: AIR 1978 SC 22; Natraj Studios (P) Ltd. v. Navrang Studios & Anr., MANU/SC/0477/1981: AIR 1981 SC 537′ and Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar & Ors., MANU/SC/0278/1999: AIR SC 2213).”

The court in (1993) 2 SCC 130, R.S.D.V. Finance Company Private Limited vs. Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. had again considered Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In paragraphs 7 and 8, following has been laid down: −

7. ….It may be further noted that the learned Single Judge trying the suit had recorded a finding that the Bombay Court had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit. Sub−section (1) of Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that 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 are settled at or before such settlement and unless there has been consequent failure of justice. The above provision clearly lays down that such objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by the appellate or revisional court subject to the following conditions:

(i) That such objection was taken in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity;

(ii) in all cases where issues are settled then at or before such settlement of issues;

(iii) there has been a consequent failure of justice.

It may be noted that Section 21 of CPC provided that no objection as to place of the suing can be allowed by even an appellate or revisional court unless such objection was taken in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice. In 1976, the existing section was numbered as sub−section (1) and sub−section (2) was added relating to pecuniary jurisdiction by providing that no objection as to 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 had been taken in the first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and unless there had been a consequent failure of justice ……..

Harshad Chiman Lal Modi vs. DLF Universal Ltd. & Anr. reported in 2005(7) SCC 791 wherein the following view was expressed:-

“We are unable to uphold the contention. The jurisdiction of a Court may be classified into several categories. The important categories are (i) territorial or local jurisdiction; (ii) pecuniary jurisdiction; and (iii) jurisdiction over the subject-matter. So far as territorial and pecuniary jurisdictions are concerned, objection to such jurisdiction has to be taken at the earliest possible opportunity and in any case at or before settlement of issues. The law is well settled on the point that if such objection is not taken at the earliest, it cannot be allowed to be taken at a subsequent stage. Jurisdiction as to subject- matter, however, is totally distinct and stands on a different footing. Where a court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit by reason of any limitation imposed by statute, charter or commission, it cannot take up the cause or matter. An order passed by a court having no jurisdiction is a nullity.”