M.Y. Eqbal, C.J.

1. In both the Writ Petitions, Petitioner prayers for a declaration that the Amending Act 19 of 2010 as published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary bearing No.154 dated 27.05.2010 so far as it pertains to the amendment in Sections 1(1) and (2), 3 and 4(2) of the Amending Act, as also Section 3-A of the Chennai City Civil Courts Act, 1892, as void and ultra vires the State Legislature and to strike down as unconstitutional.

2. Petitioner’s case is that Section 3-A was inserted by Section 2 of the Madras City civil Court (Amendment) Act, 1934. The pecuniary jurisdiction of the Coty Civil Court was initially Rs.5,000/-which was time to time enhanced arbitrarily. The said Madras City Civil Court Act, 1892 was substituted as Chennai City Civil Court Act, 1892 and presently by virtue of Section 3-A of the Act the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court is enhanced to Rs.10 lakhs. By the present Act 19 of 2010 further amendments have been made to the Tamil Nadu City Civil Court Act, 1873 and the Chennai City Civil Court Act, 1892. The aforesaid amended Act received the assent of the Governor on 25.05.2010 and was published in the Government Gazette on 27.05.2010. The Petitioner challenges the vires of Section 3-A of the Act though it is a pre-constitutional enactment.

3. Petitioner’s further case is that insertion of Section 2(c) in Section 15 of the Act is arbitrary and irrational. According to the Petitioner by coming into force of Section 3-A of the Act, it has been presumed that the original jurisdiction of the High Court has been excluded, and consequentially, from time to time the State Government has been enhancing the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court without any rhyme or reason. It is contended that the exclusion of Original Side jurisdiction of the High Court has been vested in the Original Side of the High Court. It is also the case of the Petitioner that the City Civil Court at Chennai is a creature for statute and has been constituted by Notification issued by the State Government. Section 3 is a piece of Central Enactment legislated by the Governor General Council. There is no delegation of power in Section 3 to the Provincial Government to enhance the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court from time to time. The insertion of Section 3-A of the Act by the Provincial Legislature or by the State Government will amount to the usurpation of power of the Central Legislature. Petitioner’s further contention is that the amendment made by the Act 19 of 2010 is liable to be struck down for want of legislative competence by the State Legislature. The State Government without any delegation of power cannot unilaterally make amendments to the Central Act, 1892.

4. Beforeanswering to the points raised by the Petitioner, we first refer to some of the relevant provisions of Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act, 1873 and Chennai City Civil Court Act, 1892.

5. The Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act, 1873 was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to the Civil Courts of the State of Tami Nadu. By Section 3 of the Act the number of District Courts were established and the State Government was empowered to alter the sittings of the District Courts. By Section 3-A, which was inserted by the Madras Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 1934, the State Government was empowered to appoint one or more Additional District Judges to that Court. By Section 4-A the Courts of Subordinate Judges and District Munsifs were also established. By Sections 10 and 11 the local limits of jurisdiction of District Court or Subordinate Courts or District Munsif Courts have been fixed. By Section 12 of the Act, the jurisdiction of the District Judge or Subordinate Judge has been limited to the extent prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure.

6. In the year 1892, for the purpose of establishing Additional Civil Courts for the City of Chennai, the Chennai City Civil Court Act, 1892 was enacted. By Section 3 of the Act the State