Court suggests changes in Regular First Appeals jurisdiction

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: “The person seeking justice cannot afford to wait for decades. It certainly does not argue well for society at large. After all, life is too short to be spent litigating for decades in courts,” a single-judge bench of the High Court said while suggesting amendments to the law regarding filing of appeals in the High Court.

After hearing a Regular First Appeal (RFA) in a property dispute that was filed 16 years earlier, the HC suggested that these appeals could be heard by the District Courts, rather than the High Court.

The bench of Justice Anant Ramnath Hegde has suggested amendment to the Karnataka Civil Courts Act and the Code of Civil Procedure. Under Section 19 of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, the first Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure lies to the District Court if the value of the suit is between Rs.5,00,001 and Rs.10 lakhs.

Further, the RFA has to be filed before a Single Judge of the High Court if the value of the subject matter is between Rs.10,00,001 and Rs.15 lakhs. If it exceeds Rs.15 lakhs, the RFA lies before the Division Bench of the HC.

In contrast, an original suit filed before the District Judge commences from Rs.5,00,001 and has no upper limit, the HC noted in its judgment. The HC said that there were 19,275 RFAs pending before the High Courts and it is a huge burden. Therefore if the District Judges are conferred with the power to hear all the RFAs without the monetary limit many objectives will be served.

More than 200 courts will be available for deciding the Regular Appeals and these court being nearer to the parties the goal of ‘’Justice to doorstep’ would be served. The workload of High Courts will also get reduced. The parties would have the option to file Regular Second Appeal before the High Courts if a question of law has to be decided. Stressing the need for the amendments, the HC said, “Ours is a fast-developing nation that has sent two missions to Moon and one to Mars.

When it comes to law reforms, we cannot afford to lag behind. We have no option but to initiate ‘Law Reforms’, particularly in procedural law, to meet the challenges emerging in the modern era.” The Court’s suggestion came in a RFA filed in 2007. One Kanpappa had two wives; Shantavva and Thirakavva. The first wife had two daughters while the second wife had one daughter.

The first wife and a daughter claimed for partition in 1995 and which was contested by the second wife and daughter. The Trial Court held that the two daughters from the first marriage, the daughter from the second marriage and the first wife were entitled for 1/4th share each. The second wife and daughter filed an appeal in 2007.

The first wife and daughters also filed appeals in 2008 seeking more shares. The final hearing of the appeals was held by the HC recently after 16 years. The HC upheld the order of the Trial Court dismissing the appeals filed by the claimants. However, noticing the delay, the HC suggested the amendments to the law to speed up the legal procedure.