Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Prem Chand Jain, D.S.Tewatia and Ajit Singh JJ.
Rajinder Singh Etc.
Versus
Kultar Singh
Civil MISCELLANEOUS No. 1351CI of 1978,
Decided On : JULY 16, 1979
The Punjab Courts (Haryana Amendment) Act, 1977 (Act No. 20 of 1977) and the Punjab Courts (Haryana Amendment) Act, 1978 (Act No. 24 of 1978) were passed by the Haryana State Legislature. By Act No. 20 of 1977, the jurisdictional value of an appeal to the Court of District Judge from a decree or order of a Subordinate Judge was raised to Rs. 20,000/-, while by Act No. 24 of 1978 it was provided that an appeal from a decree or order of a Sub-ordinate Judge shall lie to the District Judge, irrespective of the value of the original suit. Under Act No. 24 of 1978, an amendment was also made in S.41 in order to bring the provisions of that Section in conformity with the provisions of S.100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The effect of the amendment in S.39 under Act No. 24 of 1978 is that all R.F. As pending in this Court shall stand transferred to the Court of the District Judge.
Fact of the Case:
R.F.A. No. 359 of 1971 (Rajinder Singh etc. V/s. Kartar Singh etc.) and R.F.A. No. 67 of 1974 (Punjab Electrical and General Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. V/s. The State Bank of India) were pending decision in this Court. In view of the amendment made by virtue of Act No. 24 of 1978, both these appeals were to be transferred to the District Judge for disposal. Two applications under S.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure have been filed in the two appeals respectively, calling in question the vires of the aforesaid two Amendment Acts. These applications came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court consisting of brethren D.S. Tewatia and A.S. Bains, JJ. My learned brethren after hearing arguments at great length, referred the matter to be decided by a larger Bench vide order dated Nov. 22, 1978 which reads as under :- "In Civil Miscellaneous No. 1351-C.I./1978 in R.F.A. No. 359 of 1971, vires of Haryana Act No. 20 of 1977 called the Punjab Courts (Haryana Amendment) Act, 1977 and the Haryana Act No. 24 of 1978 called the Punjab Courts (Haryana Amendment) Act, 1978 have been challenged. Almost at the conclusion of rather a marathon hearing, it transpired that perhaps the Punjab Act No. 35 of 1963 called the Punjab Courts (Amendment) Act, 1963 is also not free from a challenge to its vires and that fact necessitated the hearing of the Advocate General, Punjab, which meant almost a de novo hearing of the entire matter and which was likely to take the same time as has already been spent on it. Since the matter is an important one and the entire field covered by the Advocate General, Haryana has to be covered again by the Advocate General, Punjab, we consider it desirable that the point be decided by a larger Bench. We, therefore, direct that the papers of this case be placed before Hon ble Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench. Mr. M.S. Jain is directed to supply to the Advocate General, Punjab, copy of the miscellaneous application. Mr. R.K. Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of Advocate General, Punjab." That is how the matter has been placed before us for disposal.
Finding of the Court:
The Punjab Courts (Haryana Amendment) Act (Act No. 20 of 1977), the Punjab Courts (Haryana Amendment) Act No. 24 of 1978 and the Punjab Courts (Amendment) Act, 1963 are valid and were enacted with the requisite legislative competence.
Issues: 1. Whether the Punjab Courts (Haryana Amendment) Act, 1977 (Act No. 20 of 1977) and the Punjab Courts (Haryana Amendment) Act, 1978 (Act No. 24 of 1978) were passed by the Haryana State Legislature with the requisite legislative competence? 2. Whether the impugned Acts are violative of Article 235 of the Constitution of India?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The topic of Administration of Justice under entry 3 of List II gives competency to the State Legislature to legislate with respect to the powers and jurisdiction of the High Court with the result that amendments made in the Punjab Courts Act by the State Legislature prior to the 42nd amendment in the Constitution were validly made and the attack on the vires of 1963 Act or any other amendment subsequent thereto is not sustainable. 2. After the 42nd amendment, the topic of Administration of Justice forms part of entry 11-A of List III, and both the State Legislature as well as Parliament are competent to legislate under this entry with regard to the administration of Justice. 3. The State Legislature being competent to amend the existing law and the relevant Central Acts themselves envisaging the effecting of changes in the law governing the jurisdiction of the High Court by the competent legislative body, the amendments effected by the Punjab State Legislature in the Punjab Courts Act from time to time cannot be considered impermissible and ultra vires of the provisions of the Constitution of India. 4. The impugned legislation does not impinge upon the judicial control of the High Court over the Courts subordinate to it, which has been vested in the High Court by virtue of Art.235 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: Civil Miscellaneous No. 1351-C.I/1978 in R.F.A. No. 359 of 1971 is dismissed, without there being any order as to costs.
PREM CHAND JAIN, J.
1. The Punjab Courts (Haryana Amendment) Act, 1977 (Act No. 20 of 1977) and the Punjab Courts (Haryana Amendment) Act, 1978 (Act No. 24 of 1978) were passed by the Haryana State Legislature. By Act No. 20 of 1977, the jurisdictional value of an appeal to the Court of District Judge from a decree or order of a Subordinate Judge was raised to Rs. 20,000/-, while by Act No. 24 of 1978 it was provided that an appeal from a decree or order of a Sub-ordinate Judge shall lie to the District Judge, irrespective of the value of the original suit. Under Act No. 24 of 1978, an amendment was also made in S.41 in order to bring the provisions of that Section in conformity with the provisions of S.100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The effect of the amendment in S.39 under Act No. 24 of 1978 is that all R.F. As pending in this Court shall stand transferred to the Court of the District Judge.
2. R.F.A. No. 359 of 1971 (Rajinder Singh etc. V/s. Kartar Singh etc.) and R.F.A. No. 67 of 1974 (Punjab Electrical and General Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. V/s. The State Bank of India) were pending decision in this Court. In view of the amendment made by virtue of Act No. 24 of 1978, both these appeals were to be transferred to the District Judge for disposal. Two applications under S.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure have been filed in the two appeals respectively, calling in question the vires of the aforesaid two Amendment Acts. These applications came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court consisting of brethren D.S. Tewatia and A.S. Bains, JJ. My learned brethren after hearing arguments at great length, referred the matter to be decided by a larger Bench vide order dated Nov. 22, 1978 which reads as under :-
"In Civil Miscellaneous No. 1351-C.I./1978 in R.F.A. No. 359 of 1971, vires of Haryana Act No. 20 of 1977 called the Punjab Courts (Haryana Amendment) Act, 1977 and the Haryana Act No. 24 of 1978 called the Punjab Courts (Haryana Amendment) Act, 1978 have been challenged. Almost at the conclusion of rather a marathon hearing, it transpired that perhaps the Punjab Act No. 35 of 1963 called the Punjab Courts (Amendment) Act, 1963 is also not free from a challenge to its vires and that fact necessitated the hearing of the Advocate General, Punjab, which meant almost a de novo hearing of the entire matter and which was likely to take the same time as has already been spent on it. Since the matter is an important one and the entire field covered by the Advocate General, Haryana has to be covered again by the Advocate General, Punjab, we consider it desirable that the point be decided by a larger Bench. We, therefore, direct that the papers of this case be placed before Hon ble Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench. Mr. M.S. Jain is directed to supply to the Advocate General, Punjab, copy of the miscellaneous application. Mr. R.K. Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of Advocate General, Punjab."
That is how the matter has been placed before us for disposal.
3 In order to appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel, it will be necessary to refer to different entries occurring in various lists of the Constitution of India. The relevant entries are set out below :-
List I - Union List
77. Constitution, organisation, jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court (including contempt of such Court), and the fees taken therein; persons entitled to practise before the Supreme Court.
78. Constitution and organisation (including vacations) of the High Courts except provisions as to officers and servants of High Courts; persons entitled to practise before the High Courts.
95. Jurisdiction and powers of all courts, except the Supreme Court, with respect to any of the matters in this List; admiralty jurisdiction. List II - State List
3. Administration of justice; constitution and organisation of all Courts, except the Supreme Court and the High Court; officers and servants of the Hi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
