Message: Return type of CI_Session_files_driver::open($save_path, $name) should either be compatible with SessionHandlerInterface::open(string $path, string $name): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice
Message: Return type of CI_Session_files_driver::close() should either be compatible with SessionHandlerInterface::close(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice
Message: Return type of CI_Session_files_driver::read($session_id) should either be compatible with SessionHandlerInterface::read(string $id): string|false, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice
Message: Return type of CI_Session_files_driver::write($session_id, $session_data) should either be compatible with SessionHandlerInterface::write(string $id, string $data): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice
Message: Return type of CI_Session_files_driver::destroy($session_id) should either be compatible with SessionHandlerInterface::destroy(string $id): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice
Message: Return type of CI_Session_files_driver::gc($maxlifetime) should either be compatible with SessionHandlerInterface::gc(int $max_lifetime): int|false, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice
Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the Courts to try all civil suits unless barred. It states that the Courts shall (subject to the provisions therein contained) have jurisdiction to try all Suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. The tests to be adopted while considering a question as to ouster of civil court jurisdiction, was summarized in 1968 itself by a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court in Dhulabhai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1969 SC 78.
Recently, the Supreme Court in M. Hariharasudhan vs. R. Karmegam, reiterated the principles stated in this constitution bench judgment. The issue considered by the bench comprising of Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Ajay Rastogi was whether the suit for damages is maintainable in light of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, which depends on whether the Act excludes the jurisdiction of the civil court.
