Amendments Long Overdue: Karnataka High Court Suggests Increasing Pecuniary Jurisdiction Of District Courts To Hear First Appeals U/S 96 CPC

The Karnataka High Court has suggested amending provisions of the law relating to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the High Court and the District Court to hear the first appeals filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, which is governed under Section 5 of the Karnataka High Court Act of 1961 and Section 19 of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964, to ensure expeditious disposal of appeals.

The bench gave the suggestion while deciding on an appeal filed by one Thirakavva who had to wait for 16 years for the court to take up for final hearing the appeal filed by her. It observed “Ideally, the final verdict in an appeal should not take more than 2 years after admission. An appeal from the stage of filing till the disposal does not involve elaborate time consuming procedures like a suit.”

Further a suggestion is made to amend provisions concerning the jurisdiction of the Court in deciding the appeals from the awards passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals.

A single judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde, sitting at Dharwad bench, said “The person seeking justice cannot afford to wait for decades. It certainly does not augur well for society at large. After all, life is too short to be spent litigating for decades in courts.”

It added “The amendments appear to be long overdue. Ours is a fast-developing nation that has sent two missions to the Moon and one to Mars. When it comes to law reforms, we cannot afford to lag behind. We have no option but to initiate ‘Law Reforms’, particularly in procedural law, to meet the challenges emerging in the modern era.”

At present under Section 5 of the Karnataka High Court Act 1961, the Regular First Appeals would lie before the Single Judge, if the value of the subject matter of the suit is between Rs. 10,00,001 lakhs and Rs.15 lakhs. If it exceeds Rs. 15 lakhs, then the Regular First Appeal lies before the Division Bench of the High Court. This pecuniary limit is fixed in 2007, by amending the provision which earlier conferred the jurisdiction on the division bench if valuation exceeded Rs.3 lakhs.

Under Section 19 of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964, the first Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908, lies to the District Court if the value of the suit is between Rs.5,00,001 and Rs. 10 Lakhs. This pecuniary limit was fixed in 2007.

Similarly, under Section 16 of the Act of 1964, the pecuniary limit for the suit before the Senior Civil Judge court commences from Rs.5,00,001 and there is no upper limit. Thus the Senior Civil Judge court in the State of Karnataka has the jurisdiction to try all original suits where the value of the suit properties or the value of the relief sought in the suit exceeds Rs.5 lakhs, except the suits under Section 92 of the Code and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

However, the Senior Civil Judge having unlimited upper pecuniary jurisdiction while deciding the suit, on being promoted as the District Judge, who sits in appeal under Section 96 of the Code, to decide the appeal from the Decree of the Senior Civil Judge, cannot entertain an appeal if the value of the subject matter of the suit exceeds Rs.10 lakhs.

Noting that in the last two decades property values have skyrocketed. Consequently, the number of appeals filed before the High Court under Section 96 of the Code has gone up by many folds.

The bench said “When the Senior Civil Courts are conferred with jurisdiction to decide the civil suits without any upper pecuniary limit, logically District Courts who decide the first Appeals arising from the judgment and decree from the Senior Civil Judge Court, should also have no restrictions on the upper pecuniary limit.”

It opined “The upper pecuniary limit of Rs.10 lakhs on the First appeals under Section 96 of the Code in District Courts defies logic.”

The court also felt that to better realise the state government policy “Justice to the doorstep” under which it has established a good number of additional District courts in various district headquarters and the taluks and a good number of itinerary courts in various taluks.

“However, if the concept of “Justice to doorstep” is to be realized in its letter and spirit, it is high time to amend the provisions of the law relating to the jurisdiction of the High Court and the District Court to hear the first appeal under Section 96 of the Code governed by Section 5 of the Act of 1961 and Section 19 of the Act of 1964.” it said.

Taking into account that the High Court is functioning far below the sanctioned strength. At present Karnataka High Court has the sanctioned strength of 62 High Court Judges. The current strength of High Court judges is 53. As on March 24, there were a total of 19,275 Regular First Appeals pending in the High Court.

The bench listed out the benefits the amendment if carried out would bring in:

a) The First Appeals will be decided by the courts nearer to the parties to the lis, which is the primary goal of the concept of ‘Justice to doorstep’.

b) More courts (nearly 200 courts, excluding Judges officiating in City Civil Courts and OOD ) will be available to decide Regular Appeals and those courts comparatively have less number of cases to deal with, compared to the pendency in High courts.

c) The workload on the High Court gets reduced and the High Court can focus its attention on the matters which exclusively fall within the jurisdiction of the High Court.

d) The statistics would also reveal a good number of additional district courts have been established at the district level and taluka level, and the number of pending Regular Appeals under Section 96 of the Code is also quite low or moderate and they will be better equipped to absorb more appeals under Section 96 of the Code.

e) All parties to the original suits will have an opportunity to file a regular second appeal on a question of law which is now denied to the parties to the suit whose value of the suit is more than 10 lakhs. The unintended anomaly gets obliterated.

f) More Courts/judges at the district level adjudicating the appeals will ensure speedy and cost-effective justice for the parties. The existing Section 5 of the Act of 1961 and Section 19 of the Act of 1964 stand as a big obstacle to the concept of justice at the doorstep. The concept of ‘justice at the doorstep’ flows from Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the same is not an empty formality. The amendment to Section 5 of the Act of 1964 and Section 19 of Act of 1961 conferring jurisdiction on the District courts to decide all appeals under Section 96 of the Code, from the decree passed in Senior Civil Judges’ court, likely to be a significant step forward in achieving the noble object of speedy and cost-effective justice at the doorstep.

The bench expressed “Though the above-suggested measures are likely to increase the number of Regular Second Appeals, one cannot be oblivious to the possibility that quite a few cases may get settled or attain finality at the District Courts level. Excluding those cases if all other contested matters come to the High Court in the form of Regular Second Appeals, given the scope of the Regular Second Appeals, quite a few of them may not get admitted and are likely to be decided in a comparatively less period.”

Amendment concerning jurisdiction of the Court in deciding the appeals from the awards passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals.

At present appeals from the awards passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (District Judges) and awards from Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunals (Senior Civil Judge) would lie to High Courts. As per statistics appeals under Section 173(1) of Act 1988, form a major portion of appeals in the High Court. The law relating to claims arising under Sections 166 and 163A of the Act,1988 is by and large well settled.

The bench suggested “The time is ripe to suitably amend the provisions of the Act (Motor Vehicles Act), 1988 to confer the jurisdiction on the District Courts to decide the appeal from the awards of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and the jurisdiction relating to the claim petitions exclusively to the Senior Civil Courts or to bifurcate the same between the Civil Judges and the Senior Civil Judges depending upon the pecuniary value of the claim.

After making the suggestion the court clarified that “The discussion in this judgment relating to the delay in the disposal of cases is not to be construed as a criticism of the judiciary or any of the stakeholders.”

It added “The discussion in this judgment is an endeavour to invite the attention of all the stakeholders on the issue and let there be a productive deliberation at an appropriate level resulting in a workable solution for the issue flagged.”

Accordingly it directed the Registry to place a copy of the judgment before the Chief Justice for His Lordship’s kind consideration and circulated it to the Chief Secretary of the State Government and the Principal Secretary to the Department of Law and Parliamentary Affairs.

Case Title: Thirakavva & ANR Ratnavva & Others

Case No: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1659 OF 2007 (PAR-) C/W RFA CROSS OBJ NO.101 OF 2008

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 154

Date of Order: 05-04-2023

Appearance: N.P. Vivekmehta, Advocate for Appelants.

Sanjay S Katageri for R1.

M V Hiremath and Shivanand D S, Advocates for R2.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment