AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Report No. 44

16. Three alternatives considered.-

In the working paper,1 we had placed three main alternatives before those we consulted, namely,-

(1) no change in Article 133;

(2) raise the value in clauses (a) and (b) to one hundred thousand rupees; and

(3) delete clauses (a) and (b) and retain only clause (c).

Another suggestion was to delete clauses (a) and (b), and while retaining clause (c), to add another clause to provide for an appeal from every division bench decision of a High Court exercising original jurisdiction. This last suggestion has not attracted much attention. We are also of the view that a provision for appeal to the Supreme Court from every division bench decision of a High Court exercising original jurisdiction is not required.

Although it is a good rule in general that there should be at least one appeal so that litigation is not concluded by one judgment, we think that in this case, a provision for appeal to the Supreme Court is not needed. So far as writ petitions heard and decided by a division bench of a High Court are concerned, they invariably involve questions of law, and more often than not, clause (c) of Article 133(1) will come into play and appeal to the Supreme Court will be available in most cases.

1. See Appendix 1, para. 15



Appellant Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in Civil matters Back




Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys