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’....

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

Mustafa Plumber

Tags