Legal Thesaurus

Ubi jus ibi remedium

Ubi jus ibi remedium:

Where there is a right, there is a remedy.

There is no wrong without a remedy. Where there is a right, there is a forum for its enforcement. [Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai, (2002) 6 SCC 16].

Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is in enforcement of the fundamental principles of law laid down in this maxim. A litigant, thus having a grievance of civil nature has a right to institute a suit in a competent civil court unless its cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred by any statute. Ex facie, in terms of section 9 of the Code, civil courts can try all suits, unless bared by the statute, either expressly or by necessary implication. [Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Bal Mukund Bairwa (2), (2009) 4 SCC 299].

A person having a grievance as against another must have a remedy. The maxim ubi jus ibi remedium is not an empty formality. The jurisdiction of the civil court exemplifies the said doctrine. The jurisdiction of the civil court cannot be held to have been ousted unless it is so, expressly or by necessary implication, stated in the statute. [Swamy Atmananda v. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam, (2005) 19 SCC 51]. [Section 53A, T.N. Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973].

Courts must always aim to preserve and protect the rights of the parties and extend help to enforce them rather than to deny relief and thereby render the rights themselves otiose. [Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra v. Pramod Gupta, (2003) 3 SCC 272].

The jurisdiction of the courts to try all suits of civil nature is very expansive as is evident from the plain language of section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This is because of the principle ubi jus ibi remedium. It is only where cognizance of a specific type of suit is barred by a statute either expressly or impliedly that the jurisdiction of the civil court would be ousted to entertain such a suit. The general principle is that a statute excluding the jurisdiction of civil courts should be construed strictly. [Dhruv Green Field Ltd. v. Hukam Singh, (2002) 6 SCC 416].

Applied in Lalit Pandey v. Pooran Singh, (2004) 6 SCC 626.

[See also Lalit Kumar Modi v. Board of Control for Cricket in India, (2011) 10 SCC 106; Ashish Ranjan v. Anupama Tandon, (2010) 14 SCC 274; Nawab Shaqafath Ali Khan v. Nawab Imdad Jah Bahadur, (2009) 5 SCC 162. [Sections 56 and 61, Trusts Act, 1882]; Ramesh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab, (2012) 12 SCC 331].

1 Comment

  • thank you very much. very helpful for judicial aspirants. also, love the legal IQ (for mains) and legal one liners section. kudos!

Leave a Reply to Advocate Harsh X