Section 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908.
The object of the Section, as mentioned by Mr. Scoble, in his speech in the Supreme Legislative Council on the 10th March 1888, is “to avoid a difficulty as to jurisdiction which frequently arises where the boundaries of estates are destroyed by fluvial action.” The principle of this Section applies also to execution proceedings though it does not, in terms, bind persons like execution creditors.
The words “and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice” have been newly added, in order to prevent the taking of technical objections as to jurisdiction.
When an allegation as to the uncertainty of the property in dispute lying within the Court's jurisdiction is made, the Court must be satisfied that there is such uncertainty; and if so satisfied, it may record a statement and proceed with the case. It must try the question itself and cannot take the decision of a Revenue Court in respect of boundaries as settling the matter. But a former decision of the Privy Council or Constitutional Courts adjudging certain lands to be in a particular jurisdiction is binding upon the Courts and removes the uncertainty in the matter. When there has been no notification fixing the boundaries of a particular district, that fact might create a reasonable uncertainty as to whether a certain property is within that district or not.
The non-recording of the statement as to uncertainty will not vitiate the decree where the Judge has, in fact, brought his mind to bear upon the question. Even otherwise it will not vitiate the decree unless;
An objection to jurisdiction must be taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest opportunity and unless so taken, the decree of the trial Court cannot be set aside on the ground of uncertainty of its territorial jurisdiction.
See Notes to Section 16.