With reference to Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, discuss......Dhulabhai v. State of MP (1968) ...... the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.

Question:  With reference to Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, discuss the principles evolved through Dhulabhai v. State of MP (1968) regarding the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. [HPJS 2023]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [With reference to Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, discuss the principles evolved through Dhulabhai v. State of MP (1968) regarding the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.]

Answer

Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) provides that civil courts have the jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature unless their jurisdiction is either expressly or impliedly barred. The jurisdiction of civil courts can only be excluded when there is a clear statutory provision or necessary implication from the statute. The landmark judgment in Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1968 SCR (3) 662] laid down important principles governing the exclusion of civil court jurisdiction.

Section 9 of the CPC 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."

This provision establishes that:

• Civil courts have the jurisdiction to try all matters of a civil nature unless specifically excluded by statute.
• The exclusion of jurisdiction can be express or implied.
• If there is no specific bar, civil courts have the power to adjudicate all civil disputes.

In Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1968), the appellants were tobacco dealers who challenged the validity of a tax imposed under the Madhya Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1950. The appellants contended that the tax was unconstitutional and hence, the recovery of tax was illegal. The State argued that the jurisdiction of the civil court was barred because the Act provided a specific remedy for challenging the validity of the tax before a statutory authority.

Principles Evolved in Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh

The Supreme Court, in a seven-judge bench decision, laid down the following seven guiding principles concerning the exclusion of civil court jurisdiction:

1. Exclusion by Express Words or Necessary Implication: Where a statute gives a finality to the orders of a special tribunal, the jurisdiction of the civil court must be held to be excluded if there is an adequate remedy provided by the statute itself.
2. Jurisdiction Not Excluded if the Statute is Unconstitutional: If the statute which creates the special tribunal is unconstitutional or if the order of the tribunal is not in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, the jurisdiction of the civil court is not excluded.
3. Inadequacy of the Statutory Remedy: Where there is an express bar of jurisdiction but the remedy provided by the statute is not adequate or sufficient, the jurisdiction of the civil court will not be excluded.
4. Challenge to the Authority of the Tribunal: If the question raised relates to the jurisdiction of the tribunal or the authority of the tribunal under the statute, the jurisdiction of the civil court will not be excluded.
5. Exclusive Jurisdiction of the Tribunal: If a statute creates a special right or liability and prescribes a specific tribunal for adjudication of disputes, then the jurisdiction of the civil court is excluded unless the remedy provided is illusory.
6. Suit for Declaration that a Statute is Ultra Vires: A suit challenging the validity of a statute or seeking a declaration that the statute is unconstitutional will not be barred from the jurisdiction of the civil court.
7. Where Fraud, Misrepresentation, or Violation of Fundamental Principles of Procedure is Alleged: The jurisdiction of the civil court is not excluded where the plaintiff alleges fraud, misrepresentation, or breach of fundamental principles of natural justice.

The Court held that the Madhya Pradesh Sales Tax Act provided a mechanism to challenge the validity of the tax through a statutory authority. However, since the appellants were challenging the very authority of the statute to impose the tax and alleging constitutional infirmities, the jurisdiction of the civil court was not barred.

The Court ruled that the civil court would have jurisdiction to entertain such cases where constitutional validity is questioned or where the statutory remedy is inadequate or illusory. The judgment in Dhulabhai remains a cornerstone in determining the scope of civil court jurisdiction under Section 9 of CPC. The principles established in this case continue to guide courts in deciding:

• Whether a statutory remedy excludes the jurisdiction of civil courts.
• When civil courts can assume jurisdiction despite the existence of a statutory remedy.
• The balance between statutory remedies and constitutional safeguards.

The decision in Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh clarified the scope and extent of exclusion of civil court jurisdiction under Section 9 of CPC. It established that unless there is an express bar or an adequate statutory remedy, the jurisdiction of civil courts cannot be ousted. The judgment reaffirmed the constitutional right of individuals to seek redress from civil courts when statutory remedies are inadequate, unconstitutional, or violate principles of natural justice.