Bar of Suits under Section 9 CPC, Limitation Act, Order 2 Rule 2 & Order 9 Rule 9

1. Section 9 CPC — Courts to Try All Civil Suits Unless Barred

Text of Section 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.

Principle

This provision is based on the maxim Ubi jus ibi remedium — where there is a right, there is a remedy.
Every civil suit is maintainable unless barred by law. If any law creates rights and liabilities but does not provide a remedy, an aggrieved person can approach the civil court for enforcement. Absence of a mechanism to enforce rights renders them meaningless.

The word shall in Section 9 makes it mandatory for courts to exercise jurisdiction when conditions are fulfilled.

Key Case Laws:

• Shiv Kumar v. Municipal Corporation, Delhi (1993 SC) — Every right has a remedy; civil court jurisdiction is presumed unless barred.

• Bhatia Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. D.C. Patel (1953 SC) — Civil court has inherent power to decide the question of its own jurisdiction. Burden to prove lack of jurisdiction lies on the defendant.

Burden of Proof and Presumption

• Presumption: Court presumes it has jurisdiction.
• Burden: Lies on the defendant to prove lack of jurisdiction.
• Authority: The same court decides on its own jurisdiction.

Example:
A sues B in Delhi for recovery of ₹5 lakh. B claims the contract was made and to be performed in Mumbai. A need not prove jurisdiction; B must disprove it.

1.1 Civil Suit vs. Suit of Civil Nature

• Civil Suit: Private legal rights are violated — e.g., property, contract, rights, status.
• Civil Nature: Wider scope; includes matters with religious/social elements if legal rights are involved.

Types:
1. Pure Civil Suit — Only legal rights involved.
Example: Recovery of debt under contract.
2. Civil Nature with Religious/Social Elements — Legal right involved despite religious context.
Example: Removal from salaried Imam post without notice.
3. Not a Civil Suit — No legal right involved, purely religious or social issue.
Example: Expulsion from caste without affecting any legal right.

Illustrative Case:
Ayodhya Case (M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das, 2019) — Though religious issues were present, the core dispute was ownership/possession of property, making it a suit of civil nature.

1.2 Suits Expressly or Impliedly Barred

• Expressly Barred: Clear statutory provision excluding civil court jurisdiction.
Example: Section 293 of Income Tax Act; special tribunals for revenue, rent, elections, etc.
• Impliedly Barred: Not expressly excluded, but barred by implication due to special remedies/public policy.
Example: Land Acquisition Act is a complete code — jurisdiction impliedly barred (Laxmi Chand v. Gram Panchayat).

Dhulabhai Test (1969 SC):
Laid down guidelines to determine when civil jurisdiction is excluded, including adequacy of statutory remedies, violation of mandatory provisions, and fraud.

 

2. Bar under the Limitation Act

2.1 Concept

The Limitation Act, 1963 fixes time limits for filing suits, appeals, and applications. Filing after the prescribed period bars the remedy, though the substantive right may survive (except in property possession cases under Section 27).

Maxims:
• Interest republicae ut sit finis litium — It is in the State’s interest to end litigation.
• Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt — Law assists the vigilant, not those who sleep over rights.

Key Points:
• Bars remedy only, not the right (except Sec. 27).
• Criminal proceedings generally not subject to limitation unless expressly provided.
• Writ petitions under Arts. 32 and 226 not covered by Limitation Act.

Section 3: Court must dismiss cases filed beyond limitation even if not pleaded by the defendant.
Section 4: If limitation expires on a holiday, filing can be done on reopening.
Section 5: Allows condonation of delay in appeals/applications (not suits) if sufficient cause is shown.

 

2.2 Exclusion of Time (Secs. 12–15)

Certain periods are excluded when computing limitation — e.g., obtaining certified copies, filing in wrong court in good faith, stay orders, defendant abroad, government consent time, etc.

2.3 Postponement of Limitation (Secs. 16–23)

Start of limitation delayed due to:
• Minority/insanity of parties
• Fraud/mistake
• Written acknowledgment or part-payment
• Continuing breach/tort
• Addition of new parties
• Special damage cases

3. Bar under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC

Principle

A plaintiff must include the whole claim arising from one cause of action in one suit.
If part of the claim is omitted intentionally without court’s leave, a second suit for that part is barred.

Key Cases:

• Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal (1964 SC) — Provision is penal; should be strictly construed.
• Kewal Singh v. Lajwanti (1980 SC) — Three tests for applicability:
1. Is the cause of action identical?
2. Could the relief have been claimed in the previous suit?
3. Was the relief omitted without leave?
• Arjun Lal v. Mriganka Mohan (1975 SC) — Rule applies only to same cause of action, not distinct ones.

Object: Prevent splitting of claims and multiplicity of suits.

4. Bar under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC

When a suit is dismissed for default of plaintiff’s appearance (O. 9 R. 8), and no restoration is sought or restoration fails, a fresh suit on the same cause of action is barred.

Key Points:
• Plaintiff may seek restoration by showing sufficient cause.
• If cause is proved, reopening is mandatory (Raman v. Arunachalam, 1936).
• Bar applies to the same cause of action even if the defendant changes (e.g., legal heirs).

Illustration:
A sues B for possession, suit dismissed for default. B dies, his widow C occupies. A sues C for same possession — barred under O. 9 R. 9 as cause of action is the same.

 

Conclusion

The CPC and Limitation Act together ensure that:
• Civil courts hear all disputes involving legal rights unless barred.
• Time limits are respected to prevent stale claims.
• Plaintiffs cannot split claims (O. 2 R. 2) or re-litigate after dismissal for default (O. 9 R. 9).
These rules maintain judicial efficiency, avoid multiplicity, and uphold fairness by preventing defendants from facing repeated litigation on the same issues.

✓ To start your preparation for Judicial Services Examination at home, drop a message on WhatsApp +91 8840961324 or call us on +91 9151591324

At Theory of Abrogation, we equip you with everything you need:
•Subject-wise expert classes
•Mock test series
•Legal current affairs
•Personalized mentorship for interview preparation

“Your law degree is your foundation, but your preparation is what will build your success.”

 

Join Our New Batch Now!

Prepare smart. Prepare with Theory of Abrogation.

Contact Us:
B-109, Commercial
Complex Dr. Mukherjee
Nagar, Delhi-09
+91 9971399324 | +91 8840961324
[email protected]