Courts to try all civil suits unless barred
Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 deals with courts to try all civil suits unless barred. 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. The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1909.
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.
1[Explanation I].--A suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of a civil nature, notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of questions as to religious rites or ceremonies.
2[Explanation II].--For the purposes of this section, it is immaterial whether or not any fees are attached to the office referred to in Explanation I or whether or not such office is attached to a particular place.]
STATE AMENDMENTS
Maharashtra.--
Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in its application to the State of Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as "the principal Act"), shall be deleted.
[Vide Maharashtra Act 61 of 2018, sec. 2.]
Notwithstanding the deletion of section 9A of the principal Act,--
(1) where consideration of a preliminary issue framed under section 9A is pending on the date of commencement of the Code of Civil Procedure (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 2018 (hereinafter, in this section, referred to as "the Amendment Act"), the said issue shall be deemed to be an issue framed under Order XIV of the principal Act and shall be decided by the Court, as it deems fit, along with all other issues, at the time of final disposal of the suit itself :
Provided that, the evidence, if any, led by any party or parties to the suit, on the preliminary issue so framed under section 9A, shall be considered by the Court along with evidence, if any, led on other issues in the suit, at the time of final disposal of the suit itself ;
(2) in all the cases, where a preliminary issue framed under section 9A has been decided, holding that the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and a challenge to such decision is pending before a revisional Court, on the date of commencement of the Amendment Act, such revisional proceedings shall stand abated :
Provided that, where a decree in such suit is appealed from any error, defect or irregularity in the order upholding jurisdiction shall be treated as one of the ground of objection in the memorandum of appeal as if it had been included in such memorandum ;
(3) in all cases, where a preliminary issue framed under section 9A has been decided, holding that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and a challenge to such decision is pending before an appellate or revisional Court, on the date of commencement of the Amendment Act, such appellate or revisional proceedings shall continue as if the Amendment Act has not been enacted and section 9A has not been deleted :
Provided that, in case the appellate or revisional Court, while partly allowing such appeal or revision, remands the matter to the trial Court for reconsideration of the preliminary issue so framed under section 9A, upon receipt of these proceedings by the trial Court, all the provisions of the principal Act shall apply ;
(4) in all cases, where an order granting an ad-interim relief has been passed under sub-section (2) of section 9A prior to its deletion, such order shall be deemed to be an ad-interim order made under Order XXXIX of the principal Act and the Court shall, at the time of deciding the application in which such an order is made, either confirm or vacate or modify such order.
[Vide Maharashtra Act 61 of 2018, sec. 3.]
Maharashtra.--
In section 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 2018, for clause (1), the following clause shall be substituted and shall be deemed to have been substituted with effect from 27th June 2018, being the date of commencement of the said Act, namely:--
"(1) where consideration of a preliminary issue framed under section 9A is pending on the date of commencement of the Code of Civil Procedure (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 2018 (hereinafter, in this section, referred to as "the Amendment Act"), the said issue shall be decided and disposed of by the Court under section 9A, as if the said section 9A has not been deleted;".
[Vide Maharashtra Act 72 of 2018, sec. 2, (w.e.f. 27-6-2018.)]
Section 9, The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act 5 of 1908).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 1
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Bal Mukund Bairwa
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-9.pdf 2009-02-12 (not same-date order-10 ROP; do not use the later 2010-07-20 order-12.pdf). Three-judge. CPC 9: civil courts try all suits of a civil nature unless barred; ouster of the civil court by an industrial/labour statute is not readily inferred and depends on the completeness of the alternative remedy. Map cpc 9.
On this section: s.9: civil courts try all suits of a civil nature unless expressly or impliedly barred. Ouster by a labour/industrial statute is not readily inferred; it depends on whether the alternative remedy is complete.
-
Central Bank Of India vs Smt. Prabha Jain
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain a suit challenging the validity of sale deeds and mortgage deeds predating the bank's involvement is not ousted by Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, because such matters do not fall within the scope of Section 17 of the Act which limits the Debt Recovery Tribunal's jurisdiction to examining whether measures taken by the secured creditor under Section 13(4) conform to the Act. Questions of title to property and validity of transfer documents are matters of civil law exclusively within the domain of civil courts under Section 9 CPC, and the bar under Section 34 applies only to matters the DRT is expressly empowered to determine. Accordingly, a suit seeking declarations of nullity of pre-mortgage documents and possession based on adverse claims to title is maintainable in civil court despite the mortgaged property being subject to SARFAESI proceedings.
On this section: Confers plenary jurisdiction on civil courts to determine all civil disputes unless expressly or impliedly barred by statute. Court applied presumption favoring retention of civil court jurisdiction.
-
Central Bank Of India vs Smt. Prabha Jain
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The jurisdiction of the civil court under Section 34 of SARFAESI Act is ousted only in respect of matters which a Debts Recovery Tribunal is empowered to determine under the Act. Since DRT under Section 17 can only examine measures taken by secured creditor under Section 13(4) - such as taking possession, lease, assignment, and realization - and cannot decide questions of title, validity of documents executed prior to creation of security interest, or disputes where third parties claim interests adversely to the borrower, the civil court retains jurisdiction to entertain suits on such matters. Consequently, a plaint raising questions about validity of sale deed and mortgage cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 merely by invoking Section 34, and such plaint cannot be rejected partially but must either be rejected wholly or proceed to trial.
On this section: Confers plenary jurisdiction on civil courts to determine all disputes of civil nature unless barred expressly or by necessary implication. Jurisdiction over title disputes and declaration suits falls within this general power.
-
Union of India vs Madras Bar Association
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Parliament has the power to enact legislation vesting adjudicatory functions previously exercised by High Courts with alternative tribunals, and exercise of such power does not per se violate basic structure of Constitution. However, when Parliament enacts legislation transferring core judicial functions to a tribunal, it must ensure that the newly created tribunal conforms with the salient characteristics and standards of the court sought to be substituted, including independence of adjudicators, security of tenure commensurate with judges of the replaced court, appointment procedures ensuring judicial independence, appointment of only legally qualified judges for deciding questions of law, and safeguards ensuring the tribunal is not subject to executive control or interference. Failure to maintain these standards violates the separation of powers and judicial review components of the basic structure of Constitution. The National Tax Tribunal Act 2005, by vesting in the tribunal the power to decide substantial questions of law while allowing non-judicial members, subjecting the tribunal to executive control, and depriving it of the independence characteristics of the High Court, violates these constitutional requirements and is therefore unconstitutional in its entirety.
On this section: Examined appellate jurisdiction vested in High Courts for deciding questions of law in civil disputes as constitutional baseline
-
Union of India vs All Orissa Tax Bar Association
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005, insofar as Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, and 13 are concerned, violates the basic structure of the Constitution by failing to ensure that a tribunal substituting High Court jurisdiction possesses the same standards, independence, security of tenure, and qualifications required for judges of the High Court. While Parliament has legislative competence to create tribunals and transfer appellate jurisdiction, such transfer must conform to recognized constitutional conventions derived from Westminster model constitutions and the principles of separation of powers, rule of law, and judicial independence which form part of the basic structure. Specific violations include: (1) locating tribunal sittings primarily in Delhi denies litigants accessibility; (2) vesting power over tribunal jurisdiction and member transfer with the Central Government (an interested party) compromises independence; (3) allowing non-legally qualified Accountant Members and Technical Members to decide substantial questions of law violates the requirement that tribunal members possess stature commensurate with High Court judges; (4) Selection Committee composition with government Secretaries violates principle that a party's opponent cannot select adjudicators; (5) five-year renewable terms encourage members to curry favor with government; (6) allowing Chartered Accountants and any authorized person to represent parties before a forum deciding only questions of law undermines the specialized nature of appellate adjudication. Consequently, the entire National Tax Tribunal Act is struck down as unconstitutional.
On this section: Framework for jurisdiction of courts; second appeal provisions requiring substantial questions of law to be decided by High Courts
-
Ram Kanya Bai vs Jagdish
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain suits for declaration and injunction relating to easementary rights (including customary rights of way or rights to take water) is not barred by section 257 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. Section 131(2) of the Code expressly preserves the jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain suits relating to any easements, irrespective of the decision of the Tahsildar under section 131(1). The decision of the Tahsildar after a summary enquiry with reference to 'previous custom' and with due regard to the conveniences of all parties is open to challenge in a civil suit and is subject to the decision of the civil court. A servient owner has the right to approach the civil court to declare that the defendant does not have any easementary right over his property and to seek injunction to restrain the defendant from exercising such right.
On this section: Applied to establish the general principle that civil courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature except those whose cognizance is expressly or impliedly barred. Court held that suits for easement rights are not barred.
-
Vishnu Dutt Sharma vs Daya Sapra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The principle of res judicata and the concept of abuse of process of law do not operate to bar continuation of a civil suit merely because the accused has been acquitted in a related criminal proceeding arising from the same transaction. A judgment in a criminal proceeding, even if it results in acquittal, does not have binding effect on a parallel civil suit as the standards of proof, burden of proof, causes of action, and legal issues are fundamentally different between criminal and civil proceedings. The applicability of reverse burden provisions and statutory presumptions in criminal law must be strictly interpreted and applied with due regard to the presumption of innocence and constitutional rights of the accused, whereas in civil proceedings no such strict compliance is required. A creditor has the right to pursue both criminal and civil remedies concurrently, and the continuation of such proceedings is neither barred by law nor constitutes an abuse of process, provided the civil suit was not barred at the time of its filing.
On this section: Provides right to file a suit of civil nature except where cognizance is barred. The court emphasized the fundamental right to access courts unless specifically barred by law.
-
Central Bank Of India vs Smt. Prabha Jain
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 34 of SARFAESI Act bars civil court jurisdiction only in respect of matters which the Debts Recovery Tribunal is empowered by or under the Act to determine. Specifically, DRT's jurisdiction under Section 17 is limited to examining whether 'measures' taken by the secured creditor under Section 13(4) are in accordance with the Act. DRT has no jurisdiction to determine the validity of sale deeds, mortgage deeds, or questions of title to property. Therefore, civil court retains jurisdiction to entertain suits seeking declarations regarding validity of such documents and title disputes, even when the property is subsequently mortgaged to a bank and enforcement proceedings are initiated. The bar under Section 34 does not apply to matters pre-dating the bank's involvement or matters outside the scope of Section 17 DRT jurisdiction.
On this section: Confers plenary jurisdiction on civil courts to determine all civil disputes unless barred expressly or by necessary implication.
-
Central Bank Of India vs Smt. Prabha Jain
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 bars civil court jurisdiction only in respect of matters which the Debt Recovery Tribunal is empowered by or under the Act to determine, namely, measures taken by the secured creditor under Section 13(4) of the Act. The validity of sale deeds, mortgage deeds, and other foundational title questions that arise prior to the secured creditor's entry into the transaction are not matters which the DRT is empowered to determine under Section 17 of the Act. Accordingly, the civil court retains jurisdiction to determine the validity of such documents, and the jurisdiction of the civil court is not ousted by Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act in respect of such matters.
On this section: Grants jurisdiction to civil courts to try all suits of civil nature unless barred by statute expressly or by necessary implication. Burden is on party asserting bar to prove it.
-
Vaishali Abhimanyu Joshi vs Nansaheb Gopal Joshi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a suit between licensor and licensee for recovery of possession of immovable property is cognizable by a Small Causes Court under Section 26(1) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (as amended by Maharashtra Act 24 of 1984), the counter-claim filed by the defendant seeking residence rights under Section 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is fully entertainable by the Small Causes Court, as the 'non obstante' clause in Section 26(1) overrides the jurisdictional limitations in Schedule II (Item 11), and Section 26 of the DV Act 2005 explicitly permits reliefs under Sections 18-22 to be sought in any legal proceeding before a civil court, including Small Causes Courts.
On this section: Permits framing of preliminary issues; respondent relied on this to challenge maintainability of counter-claim
-
Chloro Controls(i) P. LTD vs Severn Trent Water Purification INC
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In multi-party and composite commercial transactions involving multiple interconnected agreements (principal/mother agreement and ancillary/subsidiary agreements), where the principal agreement contains a comprehensive arbitration clause covering disputes 'under or in connection with' such agreement, and the ancillary agreements are integral to performing the objectives of the principal agreement and are referred to therein, the Court shall refer all disputes arising from such composite transaction to arbitration under Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This referral can include disputes of non-signatory parties who are claiming through or under the signatory parties to the principal agreement, provided: (1) there is a defined legal relationship between such parties arising from the composite transaction; (2) the parties' manifest intention demonstrates unified dispute resolution through arbitration; (3) the disputes are intrinsically interlinked and capable of composite resolution without risk of conflicting awards on overlapping issues; and (4) no serious challenge is made to the validity, operability or enforceability of the arbitration agreement at the threshold. The expression 'any person claiming through or under' in Section 45 is to be liberally construed to achieve the legislative intent of according primacy to arbitration in international commercial disputes, subject to the exceptions of agreements being null and void, inoperative or incapable of performance. Bifurcation of parties or causes of action is generally not permissible under the 1996 Act, but this does not prevent composite reference of all disputes arising from interlinked agreements forming a unified commercial transaction.
On this section: Grants right to institute civil suits but is subject to exclusions by law; arbitration clause constitutes valid exclusion of court jurisdiction when valid agreement exists
-
Ram Kanya Bai vs Jagdish
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain suits for declaration or injunction relating to easementary rights (including customary easements of right of way or right to take water through private land) is not barred by section 257 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, notwithstanding that the Code empowers the Tahsildar to decide such disputes under section 131. The Tahsildar's decision under section 131(1), made after summary enquiry based on custom and convenience, is not final but remains open to challenge in a civil suit. Section 131(2) expressly preserves the right to establish easement rights by civil suit, and section 131 easements are customary easements covered by the Indian Easements Act, 1882, not a distinct category. Civil courts retain jurisdiction to decide: (a) whether an easementary right exists and has been validly acquired under the Easements Act; (b) whether a claimed easementary right is illegal or erroneous; and (c) to grant declaration and injunction relief in respect of easement disputes.
On this section: Establishes presumption that civil courts have jurisdiction over all suits of civil nature except where cognizance is expressly or impliedly barred. Court held this presumption applies here; no express bar exists for easement suits.
-
United India Insurance Co. LTD vs Ajay Sinha
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a dispute before the Permanent Lok Adalat involves the determination of whether a non-compoundable criminal offence has been committed, the Permanent Lok Adalat lacks jurisdiction to entertain such dispute, notwithstanding that the pecuniary value of the claim falls within its jurisdictional limit of Rs. 10 lakhs. The phrase 'relating to an offence' in the first proviso to Section 22-C(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 must be interpreted broadly to exclude cases where the resolution of the civil dispute depends on determining whether a non-compoundable offence has occurred.
On this section: Confers jurisdiction on civil courts to determine all disputes of civil nature unless barred by statute; cited for principle that bar of civil court jurisdiction requires strict interpretation
-
Veena Singh(dead) through Lr vs The District Registrar/ Additional Collector (f/r)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The execution of a document under the Indian Registration Act 1908 does not mean merely signing the document. Execution requires that a person has signed the document after having fully understood its contents and consented to its terms. Therefore, a person can admit their signature on a document but still deny its execution if they did not understand the document's contents or did not consent to its terms. The Sub-Registrar must refuse registration when execution is denied under Section 35(3)(a). The Registrar, when conducting an enquiry under Section 74 following an application under Section 73, must determine not only whether the document was signed but also whether the signature was affixed after the executant understood the contents and terms of the document. The Registrar cannot adjudicate on substantive issues of fraud and undue influence, which are matters for competent civil courts. Where serious factual disputes exist regarding fraud, undue influence, and the validity of a transaction, these cannot be resolved in the summary quasi-judicial proceedings before the Registrar and must be adjudicated by a civil court.
On this section: Provides jurisdiction to civil courts to entertain suits regarding immovable property and validity of documents
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 9
What have the courts held on Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Bal Mukund Bairwa (12 Feb 2009) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.9: civil courts try all suits of a civil nature unless expressly or impliedly barred. Ouster by a labour/industrial statute is not readily inferred; it depends on whether the alternative remedy is complete. Another 13 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CPC 9, section 9 CPC, section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. People searching for it also type cpc 9 rule 7 and cpc 9 rule 13. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 14 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Bal Mukund Bairwa (12 Feb 2009).
What should I read with Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it.
When did Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure come into force?
Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, commonly called ex parte decree, and cited as CPC 9, came into force on 01 Jan 1909, having been enacted on 21 Mar 1908. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 115. Revision2475 words
- 60. Property liable to attachment and sale in execution of decree1869 words
- 2. Definitions890 words
- 42. Powers of Court in executing transferred decree653 words
- 92. Public charities610 words
- 35. Costs577 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.