Section 21 of CPC : Section 21: Objections to jurisdiction.

Explanation using Example

Example 1:

Ravi files a lawsuit against Shyam in a court located in Mumbai, claiming that Shyam owes him money. Shyam believes that the case should have been filed in Pune, where both parties reside. However, Shyam does not raise this objection at the earliest opportunity in the Mumbai court. The case proceeds, and the Mumbai court issues a judgment in favor of Ravi. Shyam then appeals the decision, arguing that the Mumbai court did not have jurisdiction. According to Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the appellate court will not entertain Shyam's objection regarding the place of suing because he did not raise it at the earliest possible opportunity in the Mumbai court, and there has been no consequent failure of justice.

Example 2:

Anita files a suit in a court with a pecuniary jurisdiction limit of ₹5 lakhs, claiming damages of ₹10 lakhs from her business partner, Raj. Raj does not object to the court's pecuniary jurisdiction at the earliest opportunity. The court proceeds with the case and issues a judgment. Raj then appeals, arguing that the court did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the case. According to Section 21(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the appellate court will not consider Raj's objection because he did not raise it at the earliest possible opportunity in the trial court, and there has been no consequent failure of justice.

Example 3:

Sunita wins a case in a court in Delhi, and the court issues an execution order to seize property located in Gurgaon. The executing court in Gurgaon proceeds with the execution. The defendant, Ramesh, does not raise any objection regarding the local jurisdiction of the Gurgaon court at the earliest opportunity. After the property is seized, Ramesh appeals, arguing that the Gurgaon court did not have the local jurisdiction to execute the order. According to Section 21(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the appellate court will not entertain Ramesh's objection because he did not raise it at the earliest possible opportunity in the executing court, and there has been no consequent failure of justice.