Report No. 79

II. Pecuniary Limits of Appellate Jurisdiction of The District Judge

18.4. Present law.-

Coming more specifically to the pecuniary limits of the appellate jurisdiction of the District Judge, we may state that the limits of such jurisdiction vary from State to State.1 For example, the appellate jurisdiction of the District Judge in Gujarat. Himachal Pradesh, Kerala and Rajasthan is Rs. 10.000. In Andhra Pradesh, it is Rs. 15.000, but asroposal to raise it further is stated to be under consideration. In Maharashtra1 according to the Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869, the appellate limit has been raised to Rs. 25.000.

1. See Appendix 1.

2. For details of appellate jurisdiction of District Judge, see Appendix 1.

Position of Institution, Disposal and Pendency in Criminal and Civil Courts During 1976, 1977 and 1st Half Year of 1978

			Institution						Disposal					Pendency as on
	1-1-76 to 30-6-76	1-1-76 to 31-12-76	1-1-77 to 30-6-77	1-1-77 to 31-12-77	1-1-78 to 30-6-78	1-1-76 to 30-6-76	1-1-76 to 31-12-76	1-1-77 to 30-6-77		1-1-77 to 31-12-77	1-1-78 to 30-6-78	30-6-76	31-12-76	30-6-77	31-12-77	30-6-78
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8		9	10	11	12	13	14	15
Criminal
Sessions Courts
Original	31,267	62,920	36,791	92,763	53,258	25,769	53,955	34,899		89838	52,338	60,264	64,548	66,716	67,992	68,975
Revision	19,470	37,401	16,343	36,848	21,210	18,542	35,553	17,272		35,920	19,938	19,552	19,239	18,035	19,841	21,104
Appeals	33,878	79,853	34,750	71,990	34,082	30,377	64,436	34,960		71,741	32,996	38,035	42,098	41,620	42,103	43,184
Total	84,615	1,71,174	87,884	2,01,601	1,08,550	74,688	1,53,944	87,131		1,97,499	1,05,272	1,17,851	1,25,885	1,26,371	1,29,936	1,33,263
Magisterial Courts
Police challans	28,96,670	58,96,900	25,54,903	49,55,288	24,31,578	26,85,136	56,89,229	26,21,523		50,83,161	22,46,893	26,14,391	27,32,279	26,40,119	25,75,815	27,57,897
Complaint cases	13,18,638	27,00,166	11,61,536	23,56,947	11,19,001	12,53,847	25,05,190	11,64,839		22,97,253	11,11,522	16,09,226	17,39,866	17,08,739	17,78,975	17,86,328
Total	42,15,308	85,97,066	37,16,439	73,12,235	35,50,579	39,38,983	81,94,419	37,86,362		73,80,414	33,58,415	42,23,617	44,72,145	43,48,858	43,54,790	45,44,225
Civil
Original Side
Regular Suitss	4,53,004	9,26,851	4,57,592	9,76,634	4,79,245	41,2,604	9,12,121	4,36,800		9,23,747	4,31,700	13,40,807	13,17,821	13,37,966	13,70,071	14,17,002
Miscellaneous cases	5,86,352	12,89,583	5,75,068	12,92,314	5,95,007	5,42,399	12,48,594	5,63,683		12,73,021	5,74,945	7,19,263	7,18,225	7,31,906	7,39,915	12,14,196*
Total	10,39,356	22,16,439	10,32,660	22,68,948	10,74,252	9,55,003	21,60,715	10,00,483		21,96,768	10,06,645	20,60,070	20,36,046	20,69,872	21,09,986	26,31,198
Appellate Side
Regular appeals	61,596	1,27,051	63,574	1,36,901	66,284	54,980	1,22,071	62,312		1,32,922	64,140	1,37,710	1,34,659	1,36,363	1,39,086	1,41,156
Miscellaneous appeals	37,967	85,012	34,279	70,066	33,673	35,711	80,741	36,220		75,803	33,473	55,985	57,660	55,493	51,690	51,862
Total	99,563	2,12,063	97,853	2,06,967	99,957	90,691	2,02,812	98,532		2,08,725	97,613	1,93,695	1,92,319	1,91,856	190,782	1,93,018

*. This increase, in pendency is due to 454463 Karnataka Agriculturist Debt. Relief Act, cases which were not included previously.

18.5. Need for change in valuation.-

The regulation of appellate jurisdiction on the basis of valuation is sound in principle, but it has to be kept in mind that the amount for the purpose of jurisdiction has to be fixed according to the conditions as they prevail when the fixation is made; and such amount ought to be revised with theAhanging conditions. A

s far back as 1949, the High Court Arrears Committeel,1 set up by the Government under the Chairmanship of Mr. Justice S.R. Das for enquiring and reporting, besides other matters, as to the advisability of curtailing the right of appeal and revision and the extent and method by which such curtailment should be effected, observed that 30 to 40 per cent. of the first appeals in the High Court arose out of suits valued at Rs. 10,000 or less, and that "considering the depreciation which has taken place in the value of money and the consequent rise in the market value of the property generally, there does not appear to be any cogent reason why the District Court should not be vested with jurisdiction to dispose of first appeals upto Rs. 10,000".

It may be mentioned that the jurisdiction of the District judge for purposes of civil appeals was Rs. 5,000 in most States when the above observations were made.

1. High Court Arrears Committee Report, (1949), quoted in 14th Report, Vol I.

18.6. In the Report of the High Courts Arrears Committee, presided over by Mr. Justice Shah, this aspect was again stressed.1 The Committee stated that disputes concerning transactions in immovable property and commodities that were then brought before the High Court by way of first appeals were such as did not reach the High Court in the earlier decades. The Committee also recommended Rs. 20,000 as the minimum for the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court.

1. High Court Arrears Committee Report, (1972), p. 63, para. 55.

18.7. Need to raise appellate jurisdiction of District Judges.-

The pecuniary appellate jurisdiction of the District Judge was fixed long ago in most of the States. Since then, there has been a considerable depreciation in the value of the rupee and we feel that it would be appropriate if the pecuniary appellate jurisdiction of the District Judge is raised. This would also have the effect of relieving the workload in the High Courts. No doubt it would give rise to a corresponding rise in the workload of the District Judge and this might, in its turn, entail the appointment of more persons as District Judges or Additional District Judges.

Despite this, we are of the view that the pecuniary appellate jurisdiction of the District Judge should be raised, because we find that the time normally taken for the disposal of an appeal in the court of District Judge is less than the time taken in the High Court and also because the cost involved in an appeal in the District Court is less than that in the High Court.

18.8. Whether uniform figure feasible.-

This takes us to the next question as to what should be the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Judge, and whether we should have a uniform figure for the different areas in the country. We have given our thought to the matter and are of the view that it would not be desirable to fix a uniform figure for the entire country. The circumstances vary from Stale to State and place to place. The impact of the depreciation in the value of the rupee is also not felt to the same extent in different areas.

18.9. Recommendation.-

We have, therefore, refrained from suggesting a uniform figUre for the pecuniary appellate jurisdiction of the District Judge. All that we can point out1 is that the pecuniary appellate jurisdiction of the District Judge has been raised to Rs. 25,000 in one State and that in some other States it has been raised to Rs. 20,000. As already mentioned,2 it would depend on local conditions in each State as to what figure should be fixed for the purpose of appellate jurisdiction of the District Judge. Accordingly, we leave the matter to the authorities in each State. These remarks would also hold good so for as the question of enhancing the appellate jurisdiction of subordinate judges (by whatever nomenclature they are described) is concerned.

1. See Appendix 1.

2. See para. 18.8, supra.

18.10. Appeals of higher value to continue to be heard by High Courts.-

At the same time, we are averse to increase inordinately the pecuniary appellate jurisdiction of the District Judge. Appeals in cases of higher values in our opinion, should continue to be decided by the High Courts, because the High Courts, by and large, inspire greater confidence.