Understanding Territorial Jurisdiction: A Closer look at Section 19 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Introduction

The concept of jurisdiction lies at the very heart of the legal system. It is a very fundamental topic in the realm of civil law as it determines which court has the authority to adjudicate and the limit or extent of authority that can be exercised by a court with regards to matters brought to them. A civil court can exercise its authority if two conditions are met: first the suit must be of civil nature and second, it’s jurisdiction to try the matter should not be expressly or impliedly barred. There are various kinds of jurisdictions: territorial (geographical limits), pecuniary (monetary limits) subject-matter (nature of cases permitted to try), original or appellate jurisdiction, etc.

The main focus of the piece would be on the territorial jurisdiction of civil courts. This is the set local or geographical limit of a court which is fixed by the Government itself. The judges of every court need to ensure that their authority is exercised only within their own districts and not exceed it in any way or else the ruling can be challenged and set aside. This concept is of such grave importance as it helps ensure courts don’t abuse their authority while trying cases.

Section 19 of the CPC addresses a niche yet vital category of jurisdictional queries of suits concerning civil wrongs to persons or movable property. Unlike the contractual or immovable property disputes, tort-based claims often have geographically dispersed effects. Section 19 attempts to resolve this complexity by allowing plaintiffs a choice of forums. In an era of increased tort litigation which ranges from medical negligence to consumer harm - Section 19 assumes renewed importance in ensuring fairness and strategic clarity.

Statutory text of Section 19 of CPC

Section 19 of the Civil Procedure Court, 1908 basically deals with territorial jurisdiction of courts regarding suits for compensation for personal injury or damage to movable property. The language of S. 19 is very clear, and it confers the territorial jurisdiction in case of suit for compensation for wrong done to the person or to the movable property on the courts having jurisdiction over two places only: (1) the place where the wrong was done, and (2) the place where the defendant resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. If it’s one of these places, then the suit can be brought to either of the two courts by the plaintiff.

This also applies in cases:

Where such wrong consists of a series of acts, a suit can be filed at any place where any of the acts has been committed.

Where a wrongful act is committed at one place and the consequences ensue at another place, a suit can be instituted at the option of the plaintiff where the action took place or consequences ensued.

The expression “wrong done” in the statute was initially only confined to “the wrong act of the defendant” and not to consequential effect thereof on the plaintiff. Consequential effect was said to be relevant in determining the amount of compensation but not the territorial jurisdiction of the court. But the ambit of “wrong done” was broadened later and now includes the act which is wrongful and the consequences it entails upon person who is affected by said wrong and place where those consequences ensued.

Defendants are not left without a defence, he or she can raise objections under Order VII Rule 10 (return of plaint for lack of jurisdiction) or Section 21 CPC (waiver unless timely objection is raised).

The hallmark of Section 19 is the dual-forum option reflecting a strategic matrix to strike a balance between plaintiff convenience and defendant fairness. This duality reduces procedural delays and forum disputes and provides a tactical advantage of choosing between two forums, thereby supporting access to justice and judicial economy.

Scope and Applicability

This section commonly is applied to tort law cases which arise from acts causing harm to persons or movable property. It covers:

Tort law: such as defamation (e.g., publication in a specific place), assault (e.g., in a specific jurisdiction), negligence (e.g., hospital malpractice).

Wrongful detention/ damage of goods (e.g., lost luggage, damaged shipments).

Section 19 applies only to actionable wrong to the person or to the movable property. Although, the application of this section is excluded in cases which deal with immovable property governed by Section 16 CPC and purely contractual claims unless it is accompanied by a civil wrong. The principle of this section is not applicable where the suit is against the government. This nuanced scope ensures that the provision does not override the specific jurisdictional logic of other CPC provisions.

Judicial interpretations

Some case laws which have helped understand the scope of Section 19 of CPC:

Globe Transport Corporation v. Triveni Engineering Works: Parties may by consent choose jurisdiction of courts at a single place of suing to the exclusion of other places otherwise available for suing. But it was considered that it is not within the competence of the parties to invest a court with jurisdiction which it does not otherwise have; but in the event that there are several forums where an action can be brought, it is possible for the parties by contract to choose a specific forum and shut out the other forums in respect of claims which one party might have against the other under a contract. As in the given case the appellant was doing business in Jaipur, with regard to Section 19 and Section 20, CPC., the court at Jaipur would have jurisdiction to entertain the suit instituted by the respondent. In such a case Clause 17 of the Contract of Carriage giving exclusive jurisdiction to the court at Jaipur city and barring the jurisdiction of other courts would be operative and effective.

State of Maharashtra v. Sarvodaya Industries: It was claimed that the plaintiffs had incurred loss at the Akola district, where they were conducting business, on account of an order, made by the Collector, of restraining the movement of the raw material beyond the Akola district. This Court held that the harm suffered by the plaintiff was the component of cause of action i.e. the wrongdoing and that it occurred within the jurisdiction of Akola district. Although, the cause of action of the plaintiff was against defendant No. 2 (Collector), as being outside the jurisdiction of the Akola Court, it naturally follows that since the plaintiff was prejudiced by such act for all intents and purposes in his business within the jurisdiction of such Court, all the conditions of section 19 of the Code were duly satisfied and the suit was correctly filed in Akola Court. The Bombay High Court upheld the trial court’s judgment, pointing out that the resultant harm in Akola was enough to ascertain jurisdiction and rejecting the State’s plea of revision.

Naseema Beevi v. Ameer Shahul: Justice Basant Balaji noted that a Sub Court in Kerala would have territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate a suit for compensation of a wrong done in Delhi, according to the wider interpretation of wrong done under Section 19 of CPC, the consequences of the wrong warranted in determining the jurisdiction in Kerala, where the plaintiff was residing. The Court further held that in an action for compensation for wrong perpetrated, mere wrong or injury perpetrated without anything else would not be sufficient to hold good to support claim of compensation. The wrong perpetrated cannot be construed in a limited sense but has to be interpreted in the wider amplitude. The Court also made a reference to the case of Ayyappan Pillai v. State of Kerala & Anr., to interpret the meaning of the word wrong in Section 19 of CPC. Here, it was held that the wrong committed encompasses the effect of the act and damage that follows. If the act does not result in any consequence or harm, then the act can be non-actionable. Hence, the term wrong done used in Section 19 of CPC must be construed as including the impact of the act.

Khanchand Pokardas v. Harumal D. Varma: Section 19 - Suit for damages for malicious prosecution - Court in whose jurisdiction summons was served on plaintiff maliciously prosecuted has jurisdiction to entertain suit Courts have generally supported plaintiffs’ right to select the more accessible or advantageous forum, while ensuring that such discretion is not exercised oppressively.

Interaction with other provisions

Section 19 must be read in harmony with:

Section 15 CPC: This section prescribes that suits must be first filed in the court of lowest competent jurisdiction.   

Section 20 CPC: General provision for suits not covered under Sections 16–19.

While Section 20 also permits suits at the defendant’s residence or where the cause of action arises, Section 19 is specific to tort-like claims, thus prevailing in case of overlap. In multi-cause actions like a blend of contract and tort, courts examine the dominant cause of action to decide applicability.

Law Commission Report

The 54^th Law Commission Report (1973) focuses on various aspects of the spirit and major themes of the provisions laid down in the CPC. It discusses the concept of territorial jurisdiction and endorses the rationale behind giving plaintiffs the option of forums in tort or personal wrongs (Section 19) especially in a country like India where the defendants and cause of actions may lie in different jurisdictions. This report aimed to clear out the confusion created due to the overlapping language and undefined concepts of the Act.

It showed it support for the principle that plaintiffs in compensation-based claims should not be forced to travel to travel to the defendant’s location if harm was suffered elsewhere. The same is embedded in section 19 of the CPC and this report only helped further justify how the burden of litigation should not fall excessively on the injured party. A person who has suffered a wrong should, in general, have a right to sue where the cause of action has arisen.

The Report also pointed out how the expression “cause of action” which is used across various jurisdictional provisions needs clearer definition. While Section 19 may use the term “wrong,” it faces a similar problem of what exactly does a “wrong” actually constitutes, this still till date remains legally unsettled to a certain extent. The Commission noted that these undefined terms allow for subjective judicial interpretation, often leaves room for a lot of discretion which creates a grey area often resulting in inconsistent rulings. This observation is especially relevant in the context of forum shopping and ambiguous suits, where plaintiffs stretch the definition of “wrong” to justify their preferred jurisdiction.

While the Commission accepted the inherent need for more flexibility in forum selection process under Section 19, it also warned of its potential misuse, particularly in suits filed in metropolitan or “celebrity” jurisdictions (like Delhi or Mumbai) without a genuine or real connection to the cause of action. It recommended stricter enforcement of objections under Section 21 CPC and Order VII Rule 10 to guard against the same and to reinforce procedural discipline.

The Commission’s insights remain highly relevant even today, especially in the context of rising digital torts, expanding plaintiff strategies, and the evolving judicial approach to jurisdiction. Thus, while it furthers the cause at the same time it warns us about the potential challenges that may be faced.

Challenges and Criticisms

Despite its strengths, Section 19 is not immune to critique:

Vagueness of terms: Courts are often forced to interpret vague language such as “wrong” and “movable property”, leading to uncertainty.

•      

Digital jurisdiction dilemmas: In online defamation or cyber fraud cases, it is difficult to pinpoint where the “wrong” occurred, blurring the forum selection.

Overburdening courts: Urban courts (e.g., Delhi, Mumbai) face heavy filing due to perceived efficiency or legal acumen, irrespective of actual connection to the dispute.

The absence of legislative refinement, despite the digital explosion and mobile citizenry, has rendered Section 19 less adaptable in certain modern contexts. There is a need for judicially guided and possibly statutory clarification on its digital applicability.

Conclusion

Section 19 CPC plays a pivotal role in navigating jurisdictional complexities in tort and property-related suits. By offering plaintiffs a choice of forum, it furthers procedural justice and balances the interests of both parties. Yet, its potential for misuse, interpretive ambiguity, and struggle with digital-age issues suggest that the provision needs more than mechanical application. Thus, judicial vigilance is essential to prevent its misuse. As litigation increasingly involves digital harm and trans-jurisdictional parties, Section 19 must evolve, either through interpretative clarity or legislative amendment, to sustain its relevance in a mobile, digital India.

Author: Aadita Madhavan, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

References

1.     Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (Act No. 5 of 1908), Section 19.

2.     Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (Act No. 5 of 1908), Section 15.

3.     Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (Act No. 5 of 1908), Section 20.

4.     Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (Act No. 5 of 1908), Order VII Rule 10.

5.     Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (Act No. 5 of 1908), Section 21.

6.     Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (Act No. 5 of 1908), Section 16.

7.     Globe Transport Corporation v. Triveni Engineering Works, (1983) 4 SCC 707.

8.     State of Maharashtra v. Sarvodaya Industries, AIR 1975 Bom 197.

9.     Naseema Beevi v. Ameer Shahul & Ors., MANU/KE/3424/2023.

10.  Khanchand Pokardas v. Harumal D. Varma, AIR 1965 Bom 109.

11.  Law Commission of India, Fifty-Fourth Report on the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, 1973, https://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/report54.pdf.

12.  Anand Traders v. S.K. Enterprises, 1989 SCC OnLine Gau 104.

13.  Ajay Bandu Darekar v. Adhikrao Baburao Deshmane, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 5258.

14.  C.K. Takwani, Civil Procedure with Limitation Act, 1963 (9th ed., Eastern Book Company 2021).

15.  Mulla, The Code of Civil Procedure (18th ed., LexisNexis 2022).

16.  M.V. Elisabeth v. Harwan Investment & Trading Pvt. Ltd., 1993 Supp (2) SCC 433.

17.  Union of India v. Pramod Gupta, 1997 SCC OnLine Del 123.

18.  Bar & Bench, Supreme Court Clarifies Territorial Jurisdiction in Tort Claims under Section 19 CPC, 2024, https://www.barandbench.com/news/supreme-court-section-19-cpc-territorial-jurisdiction.

19.  LiveLaw, Section 19 CPC: Dual Forum Choice for Compensation Suits – Recent Judicial Trends, 2025, https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/section-19-cpc-territorial-jurisdiction-2025.