Report No. 27
36. Appeals in England.-Compared with the multiplicity of appeals in this country, the right of appeal in England is very much restricted. In that country, in cases which originate in the High Court, there is a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal both on facts and on law from a final judgment of the High Court. From the Court of Appeal a litigant may appeal to the House of Lords, subject to leave being granted by the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords. This leave is very sparingly granted and, accordingly very few cases go to the House of Lords1. For all practical purposes, there is, therefore, only one appeal from a judgment of the High Court. In cases decided by a county court, an appeal lies to the Court of Appeal on a question of law only.
1. For details, see "Right of appeal etc." in 1958 Current Legal Problems.
37. Curtailment of right of appeal.-The proposal to curtail the right of appeal in this country was fully examined in some detail by the Law Commission in the Fourteenth Report1. We agree with their conclusion that, considering the conditions in this country there is not much scope for curtailing the right of appeal. The only change proposed by the Law Commission in the Fourteenth Report was in section 102 of the Code (apart from enlargement of appellate jurisdiction of District Courts and abolition of certain Letters Patent Appeals). Section 102 provides, that no second appeal shall lie in any suit of the nature cognizable by Courts of Small Causes when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the original suit does not exceed one thousand rupees.
The Law Commission recommended in the Fourteenth Report2, that the limit of Rs. 1,000 may be raised to Rs. 2,000. We think that in view of the further fall in the value of money since the making of the Fourteenth Report, the limit should be raised to Rs. 3,000. The Law Commission further recommended, that there should be no second appeal even in the case of suits of a value exceeding that prescribed by section 102 which are not of a small cause nature and in which no right to immovable property is involved.
A second appeal lies on a question of law only. We do not think that a litigant should be deprived of this limited right of appeal in the case of suits other than those of the nature cognizable by Court of Small Causes. For the purpose of an appeal, no distinction can, in principle, be made between suits involving a right to immovable property and other suits. If a question of law arises in either case there should be a right of second appeal. We are, therefore, of the opinion that apart from raising the limit of Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 3,000 no further amendment should be made in section 102 of the Code.
1. 14th Report, Vol. I.
2. 14th Report, Vol. I.
38. Letters Patent Appeals.-The Law Commission in the Fourteenth Report recommended1 the abolition of Letters Patent Appeals from the judgment of a single Judge of a High Court exercising appellate jurisdiction. We express no opinion on this question, because we think that amendment of the Letters Patents of High Courts should be dealt with separately and should not be mixed up with the revision of the Code of Civil Procedure.
39. Delay in disposal of appeals by High Courts.-Relying on the statistics collected by it, the Law Commission expressed the conclusion in the Fourteenth Report2 that delays in the disposal of appeals are far greater in the High Courts than in the District Courts. On an average an appeal in the District Court is disposed of within a period of one or two years. The problem of delay in appeals arises in High Courts only. In the High Courts appeals take a much longer time. The duration of a first appeal in a High Court ranges from 289 days to 2503 days and that of a second appeal from 113 days to 2038 days3. We understand that, the average duration of an appeal in the Court of Appeal in England is about three months only. It seems to us, that the delay in the disposal of appeals in the High Courts is not due to any defects in procedure. The delay is also not due to the time taken in the preparation of paper books4.
1. 14th Report, Vol. I.
2. 14th Report, Vol. I.
3. Based on statistics collected for 1954-55, 14th Report, Vol. I.
4. 14th Report, Vol. I.
40. Appellate procedure.-Order XLI lays down the procedure for hearing appeals. The provisions of this Order are basic and fundamental, and are not capable of improvement except in some minor details. The Law Commission in the Fourteenth Report recommended some small amendments in this Order1. We have incorporated some of these amendments with which we agree in the draft Bill prepared by us. In our opinion the delay in the disposal of appeals in High Courts is mainly due to congestion of work, which is not in any way connected with the procedure prescribed by Order XLI.
The congestion of work is mainly due to increase in the number of appeals and the big addition of petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The latter class of petitions naturally and rightly take precedence over other work, and often involves complicated questions which consume a great deal of judicial time. We think that the remedy for reducing the arrears of appeals in High Courts lies elsewhere than in the amendment of the Code, e.g., by increase in the number of Judges.
1. 14th Report, Vol. I.