Report No. 27
This carries out, in part the recommendation made in the Fourteenth Report1. The object is to restrict the right of second appeal in certain cases. The proposed draft, however, differs from the recommendation in the Fourteenth Report, on the following points:-
(1) The amount has been increased to Rs. 3,000 (The Fourteenth Report suggested Rs. 2,000).
(ii) The restriction against second appeals in suits below the specified amount will apply, as at present, only to suits of a small cause nature. (The Fourteenth Report recommended its application to all suits except suits involving rights over or in respect of immovable property. It is not however considered desirable to widen the section in that manner)2.
1. 14th Report, Vol. I.
2. See also the body of the Report.
The words "made after the commencement of this Code" are being omitted as obsolete today, after the lapse of fifty years from the enactment of the Code.
This carries out the recommendation made in the Fourteenth Report1. The object is to clarify the position regarding revisions from interlocutory orders2.
There is a conflict of decisions as to revision in cases where an appeal lies to some court other than the High Court3-4. The position has been clarified.
1. See 14th Report, Vol. I.
2. See the body of this Report.
3. Vasu v. Narayanan, AIR 1962 Ker 261 (Revision lies).
4. Custodian of Evacuee Property v. Nasiruddin, AIR 1962 Punj 218 (FB) (Revision does not lie).
In the Report of the Hindu Religious Endowments Commission1, an observation has been made that it is a matter for consideration whether "accredited and recognised heads of mutts of accepted sanctity and authority" should not enjoy exemption from personal appearance in courts. No change is suggested on this point, as it may not be possible to enumerate in the statute these various mutts.
1. Report of the Hindu Religious Endowments Commission, 1960-62, p. 37, Chapter IV, para. 10.
It is considered desirable to increase the period from 14 to 40 days in conformity with the position obtaining in England in relation to members of the House of Commons,- see Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution also. It is also considered, that this amendment should apply to Members of State Legislatures also. The view that the subject-matter (so far as concerns such Members) falls within the competence of State Legislatures, under Article 194(3) of the Constitution, has not been accepted. It is felt, that the matter falls within entry 13, Concurrent List- "Civil Procedure including all matters dealt with in the Code of Civil Procedure at the commencement of this Constitution".
1. Certain changes in the provisions relating to taking down of evidence have been suggested in the Fourteenth Report1, but section 138 is not expressly referred to therein. The changes have not been carried out under Order XVIII, for reasons given separately2. Accordingly, section 138 is also left as it is.
2. For this reason, the Assam Amendment3, authorising dictation, has not been adopted.
1. See 14th Report, Vol. I.
2. See discussion regarding Order 18, rule 5.
3. See Assam Act 2 of 1941, section 2(2), amending section 138.
"Notaries" have powers to administer oath under section 8(1) (e) of the Notaries Act, 1952.
The question of adding "notaries" in section 139 has been considered in detail with reference to the suggestions received through the Ministry of Law to that effect. These suggestions state that in the absence of a provision, the courts refuse to accept the affidavits sworn before notaries. It is, however, considered that the matter should be left to be dealt with by High Courts under section 139 (b) or otherwise.