Report No. 14
Section E
(i) Appeals and Revision
120. Do you agree with the principle that as a rule only one appeal should lie in civil cases followed by a revision on the ground of miscarriage or failure of justice? Would you be in favour of appeals being heard by a Bench of District Judges with no further right of appeal? Will this method lead to conflicting decisions by the District Judges and if so what remedy will you suggest?
121. Do you agree that the present law leads to a multiplicity of appeals which causes enormous delay and the hearing of the same matter occasionally as many as five times with no tangible Advantage to the litigants?
122. Are you in favour of omitting any of the items in the list of appealable orders given in order XLIII, rule 1?
123. Have you any changes to suggest in the existing method of the preparation of paper books and other records of the appeal with a view to reducing, as far as possible, the costs in appeal?
124. Would you be in favour of written briefs being submitted in the heavier appeals in the Supreme Court and a suitable time limit being applied to arguments by the lawyers?
125. What are your views in regard to the rights of appeal to the Supreme Court provided by the Constitution in Articles 132, 133, 134 and 136?
126. Would you enlarge or curtail the appellate jurisdiction conferred on the Supreme Court in regard to Criminal matters under Article 134?
127. How, in your opinion, has the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction under Article 134 affected the High Courts?
128. What generally are your views in regard to the exercise of its jurisdiction by the Supreme Court under Article 136?
129. Do you agree that a large number of revision applications filed before High Courts lack substance and are filed for delaying the conclusion of the litigation? Would you be in favour of a drastic curtailment of this right of revision?
130. Would you be in favour of a drastic curtailment of the right of revision in the case of interlocutory orders? What is your view on the proposal that revisions in respect of such orders should be confined only to cases falling within clause (a) of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that no revision should be allowed in cases falling under clauses (b) and (c) ?
131. Do you agree that the admission of an application for revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act should be made conditional on an applicant depositing the decretal amount in court?
132. Would you confer upon the District Court revisional jurisdiction under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, without any further revision to the High Court?
(ii) Writ Procedure
133. What are your views as to the manner in which writ proceedings under Article 226 have been dealt with in your State? Have these proceedings been the cause of congestion and delays in your courts?
134. Do you agree that these proceedings furnish a satisfactory method for the expeditious disposal of important matters? If so, would you extend such a procedure to a wider class of cases? If so, please state the matters to which this procedure could be extended.
Back
