Court emphasized that an administrative order cannot bar access to the court; both the High Court and District Courts hold concurrent jurisdiction for executing decrees below Rs. 2 crores.

JUDGMENT :

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. This writ petition assails Administrative Order dated 17 November 2016 issued by the Registrar (Original) of this Court, the relevant part of which reads as under:

“We have noticed that the Registry is accepting fresh Execution Petitions even in cases in which money decrees have been passed for a sum upto Rs. 2 crores. Since the pecuniary jurisdiction has been enhanced from Rs. 20 lakhs to above Rs. 2 crores in terms of section 4 of Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 2015 (Act 23 of 2015) which came into effect from 26.10.2015 vide Notification No. F. No. L-19015/04/2012 Jus dated 26.10.2015, we direct the Registry not to accept such matters as the Jurisdiction to hear such matters lie with the District Courts.

As regards the pending Execution Petitions in this Court, we direct the Registry to identify such Execution Petitions which have been pending in this Court involving a sum upto Rs. 2 crores for being transferred to the concerned District Courts. A note to the above effect be also published in the Cause List.”

2. Consequent on the issuance of the aforesaid administrative order, the following note was also inserted in the cause list of this Court, which reads as under:

“Pursuant to the order passed by Hon’ble the Chief Justice dated 17.11.2016, fresh Execution Petitions in which money decrees have been passed for a sum up to Rs. 2.00 crors shall not be accepted in this Court as the jurisdiction to hear such matters lies with the District Courts in terms of Section 4 of the Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 2015.”

3. The impugned Administrative Order was issued consequent to the enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Original Side of this Court from Rs. 20 lakhs to Rs. 2 crores by amending the pre-existing Section 5 (2), [5. Jurisdiction of High Court of Delhi. –

*****

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, the High Court of Delhi shall also have in respect of the said territories ordinary original civil jurisdiction in every suit the value of which exceeds rupees twenty lakhs.] of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, [ “the DHC Act”, hereinafter] vide Section 2 [2. Amendment of Section 5 . – In sub-section (2) of section 5 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, for the words “rupees twenty lakhs”, the words “rupees two crores” shall be substituted. ] of the Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 2015, [Signature Not Veri 4 f i“etdhe Amendment Act”, hereinafter]

4. We have heard Ms. Swathi Sukumar, leaned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Amit George, learned Counsel for the respondent.

5. At the outset, Ms. Sukumar has restricted her challenge to the the words “rupees twenty lakhs”, the words “rupees two crores” shall be substituted. first paragraph of the impugned Administrative Order, which directs the Registry of this Court not to accept Execution Petitions in which the decree is for a sum of Rs. 2 crores or less. She does not assail the second paragraph of the Administrative Order, which directs pending Execution Petitions to be transferred to the concerned District Court.

6. We, therefore, restrict our consideration to the legality, or otherwise, of the first paragraph of the impugned Administrative Order.

7. Ms. Sukumar has drawn our attention to Section 37 [ 37. Definition of Court which passed a decree. – The expression “Court which passed a decree”, or words to that effect, shall, in relation to the execution of decrees, unless there is anything repugnant in the
subject or c