Report No. 14
23. In Munsifs' courts.-
Consequent upon the replacement of the Madras Act (V of 1954) by the Madras Act (1 of 1955) and also the enforcement of Act (XVI of 1951) raising the pecuniary jurisdiction of the district munsifs' courts from 19th May, 1955 to Rs. 5,000 there was an appreciable increase in the number of original suits instituted in those courts in the year 1955 as will be seen from the figures given in the Table (No. 7) below:-
Table No. 7
Civil Suits
Year |
No. of Officers |
Pending at the beginning of the year |
Institution |
Disposal |
Pending |
|
1954 |
98 |
52176 |
29189 |
34457 |
49036 |
42116 |
1955 |
96 |
49036 |
55701 |
63177 |
44361 |
15390 |
1956 |
72 |
44361 |
51818 |
57689 |
41007 |
13427 |
24. Grant of stays.-
The average duration of the suits disposed of after full trial was 721 days in the year 1955 as against 491 in 1954. In 1956 it had come down to 305 days. It is regrettable that a fair number of suits instituted in the year 1946 were still pending at the close of 1956 in courts of munsifs. It is difficult to appreciate the wisdom of enhancing the pecuniary jurisdiction of munsifs without making adequate arrangements for the expeditious disposal of proceedings.
Senior lawyers of the District Bar complained of the delays caused by the indiscriminate passing of stay orders and the difficulty of executing decrees. Defective drafting and frequent amendments of important laws like Debt Relief Acts was also stated to be responsible for protracted litigation. A senior lawyer who practised at Mangalore in the South Kanara District before it was integrated with the Mysore State, speaking of his experience about the administration of civil justice in the subordinate courts of the Madras State, gave certain examples to illustrate how freely stay orders were obtained.
Referring to section 9A of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act (IV of 1938) he said that in actual practice a party obtaining a decree would ordinarily not get possession of the properties even after three or four years, for the very next day after the proceeding was decided in the trial court, an appeal would be preferred and a stay order obtained-a stay order very often without the imposition of any terms.
The appeal would last for about two years. Soon after the disposal of the appeal the matter would again be taken in appeal to the High Court where a stay order would again be obtained which may be in force for another two or three years. If this depicts the true state of affairs, we feel that the High Court should examine in great detail the periodical returnswith a view to ascertain in which cases the proceedings of the lower courts were stayed, and whether there were sufficient reasons for passing the stay orders.
One of the causes of the increase in litigation was stated to be the bad drafting of the laws. It was stated that the ambiguities in the several provisions of Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938 had resulted in a good deal of protracted litigation. The Act had to be amended on several occasions and sometimes even the definitions .had to be altered. Various other instances of ill-drafted legislation were pointed out. It was stated that "the responsibility of the Legislatures in giving rise to such avoidable litigation by tinkering with laws again and again and upsetting decisions of Courts is very great". We hope that our recommendations made elsewhere for improved methods of drafting legislation will put an end to this most undesirable state of affairs.
25. Panchayat Courts.-
The Panchayat Courts have been constituted in the State under the provisions of the Madras Village Panchayats Act of 1950 (X of 1950). In the year 1957 about 6088 Panchayat Courts functioned in the State. The Panchayat Courts have powers to try civil cases valued upto Rs. 100. They can try even cases valued upto Rs. 200, if both the parties consent to it. These courts can impose fines upto Rs. 15 except in cases of damage to property when the fine may be double the value of the property.
The Regional Inspector of Municipal Councils and Local Boards, who gave evidence before us stated that sometimes the Courts in practice did not meet for months together and that rules should be framed to ensure that they meet periodically and that Panchayat Courts should be given clerical assistance in doing their work. The following
Table (No. 8) shows the number of civil and criminal proceedings instituted in and disposed of by the Panchayat Courts during the years 1954-55. It is apparent that in this State the Panchayat courts afford substantial relief to the regular courts.
Table No. 8
Civil |
Criminal |
|||||
Year |
Pending at the beginning of the year |
Disposals |
Balance |
Pending at the beginning of the year |
Disposals |
Balance |
1954 |
5938 |
24191 |
6122 |
2331 |
1565 |
766 |
1955 |
4774 |
22194 |
7451 |
598 |
463 |
135 |
(Figures from 5 districts not received) |
(The figures relate only to five Districts) |
|||||
26. Criminal courts in the Presidency Town.-
The city of Madras has been divided into five police ranges for the purpose of investigation of crimes and maintenance of law and order. Crimes committed within the City limits are brought to trial before the Courts of Presidency Magistrates of whom eight including the Chief Presidency Magistrate are stipendiary. A comparative Table (No. 9) of work done by the Presidency Magistrates' Courts is given below:
Table No. 9
Criminal Cases |
|||||
Year |
No. of officers |
Pending at the beginning of the year |
Institution |
Disposals |
Balance |
1954 |
8 |
3005 |
169697 |
169745 |
2699 |
1955 |
8 |
2699 |
129812 |
128733 |
3040 |
1956 |
8 |
3040 |
176520 |
173120 |
2816 |
27. The bulk of petty cases arising in the city limits is disposed of by the honorary Presidency Magistrates. There is a mobile court which sits in different centres outside the normal court hours and disposes of minor offences under the City Police Act and the like soon after they are reported.
28. The Commissioner of Police, Madras City is invested with powers of Presidency Magistrate; he can enlarge an accused on bail; under section 167, Cr. P.C. he can remand an accused to custody.
Back
