VISHNU AWATAR ETC. v. SHIV AUTAR AND ORS

Citation: [1980] 3 S.C.R. 973

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER, O. CHINNAPPA REDDY

Case summary

These petitions for special leave deserve to be dismissed because the Full Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court which is challenged in all the three has been rightly decided in our view....

Judgment text

VISHNU AWATAR ETC. v. SHIV AUTAR AND ORS. May 2, 1980 [V. R. KRlsHNA IYER AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ. ) Code of Civil Proce4ure, 1908, Section 115-Revisory furisdiction uf the Bi11h Court-Section 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (U. P. ) Act, 1978 forbidding a revision under Section 115 of the C. P. C. to the High Court from a Judgment or . order in appeal by the District Court where the suit out of whi'ch the case arisea is not one of the value of Rs. 20,000/- and above-Import and impact ol Section 3 of the U. P. Amendment Act, 1918-Article 136 of the Constitution-Supreme Court's power to interfere. Dismissing the spedal leave petitions, the Court . HEID : !. Ordinarily when a State Legislation is being interpreted the mean· ing received by it in the High Court as the settled intent shontd rarely be disturbed by the supreme Conrt unless the error is so egregiou&, the impsct goes beyond the State or.

like legislation elsewhere and decisions of the High Courts thereon may lead to confusion and uncertainty. [979 A·B] 2. Viewing the text of Section 3, lexically literally, schematically, and in the setting of social justice of which saving the average litigant from the intoxication of tantalising litigation is component, "No revision to the High Conrt" wonld be the only conclusion. Purposively speaking, it will b'e stultifying fO interpret, oection 3 to mean that orders in appeol·by District Conrts must suffer a distmit journey to revisory justice from the High Court. [980 CD} Vishesh Kumar v. Shanti Prasad, [1980) 3 S. C. R. 32 clarified. 3. The short test to refuse revisory jurisdiction to the High Court is to aecertain whether the decision sought to be challen&ed is in a case arising out of a suit of the valuation of Rs. 20,000/· and more. If the aaswer is 'Yes' theB 1 the High. Court bas revisory power, but if the suit from which the cue arises and in \\!

llch the decision is made is one where the valuation is lesa than Rs. 20,000/· then the litigation cannot travel beyond the District Court except in that class of ' ... cases where the decioion is taken for the first time by the District Court it&elf in ' a case ariSing ont of an ori&inal proceeding. From thiS angle, none of the Specill Leave Petitions survive. (980 D·FJ After all, our District Courts are easier of acce! S for titigimla, and the High Courts, especially in large States like Uttar Pradesh, are 'untouchable' and 'un· approach•ble' for agrestic populations and even urban middle classes. Nor la there ground to distrust the District Judges. A hierarchy of courts built upon a heritage of disbelief ·in inferiors has an imperial llavonr.

If we suspect a Munsif and put a District Judge over him for everything he does, if We distrUlt a district Judge and vest the High Court with pervasive supervision, if we be skeptical about the High Courts and watch meticulously over all their orders, the System will break down as its morale will crack up. A psychic communicable disease o! suspicion, skepticism 0nd servility cannot make for the health of the 974 SIJPRBMB COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 S. C. R. judicial system. If the Supreme Court has a super-Supreme Court above it, it is istrict Court, as the case may be, may make such order in the case as it thinks fit. Provided that in respect of cases arising out of original suits ()[' other proceedings of any valuation, decided, by the District Court, the High Court alone shall be competent to make an order under this sec! ion. Provided further that the High Court or the District Court shall · ·not under this section, vary or reverse any ()['der including an order deci.

cling an issue, made in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where,. - · (i) the order, if so varied or reversed, w(! Uld finally dis· ~· pose of the suit or other proceeding; or (ii) the order, if allowed to stand, woold occasion a failure, of justice or cause irreparable injury to the p party against whom it was made. (Explanation)-In this section, the expression 'any case which bas been decided' includes any other deciding an issue in the course of a suit or other proceeding. The bulk of the cases we disposed of in the earlier round turned on the teaability of a revision upon a revii;ion-a product of legal ... ingenuity oy which the attempt of the legislature to save the little litigant from the logistics of justice from the distant High Court by confining lesser revisions to the District Court was metamorphosed into a du!!! revision, one at the District Court level and the other at the High Court against the District Court's order in revision.

Value- 8 free legalistics can be counter-productive acrobatics ! When that happened the Legislature stepped in again and again and we are concerned with the import and impact of s. 3 of the Act vis a vis /' VISHNU AWATAR v~ SHIV AUTAR (Krishna Iyer, J. ) 977 iippellat~ orders of District Courts where the suits from which they mem are Jess than Rs. 20,000/c in value. A brief analysi~ of that provision is contained in Vishesh Kumar (supra) : "4. From 1st August, 1978 : Fmally, s. 3, Code of Civil Procedure (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1978, which was deemed to have come into force on 1st August, 1978, amended s. 115 again and restored the bifurcation of revisional jurIBdictien between the High Court and the District Court. Accordingly now : (i) The High Court alone had jurisdiction under s. 115 in cases arising out of original suits or other proceedings · of the value 'of Rs.

20,000 and above, including such suits or other proceedings instituted before 1st August, 1978; (ii) The District Court alone has jurisdiction under s. 115 in any other case, including a case arising out of an original suits or other proceedings. instituted before 1st August, 1978; (iii) The High Court has jurisdiction under s. 115 in respect of cases arising out of original suits or other proceedings of any valuation, decided by the District Court; (iv) A revision proceeding pending immediately before 1st August, 1978 of the nature in which a District Court could exercise revisional ·power under s. 115 as amended by the Amendment Act, 1978 if pending; (a) in the District Court, would be decided by that court as if the Amenlhtent Act of 1978 were in force at all material times; (b) in the High Court, would be decided by the High Court as if the Amendement Act of 1978 had not come into force.

The provision now before us is slightly different although the purpose and the result are the same. The scheme is clear. The High Court has re~y iiower only in cases ·arising out of original suits or other proceedings of the value of twenty thousand n:ipees and above R including such suits or other proceedings instituted before Aug. 1, 1978. The entire residuary area belongs to the District Court. An- 978 SUPREME COURT REPORT. S [1980] 3 S. C. I. ~ other test of revisional jurisdiction for the High Court is (o see whether the first proviso applies : Provided that in respect of cases arising out of original suits or other proceedings of any valuation, decided by the District Court, the High Court alone shall be competent to make an order under this section. • The High Court, in the last Full Bench decision traced the story · of the rare between the legislature and judicial interpretation and summed up the result rightly thus : (') .

,'f' ''The High Court was confined to cases arising out of original suits or other proceedings of the value of Rupees 20,000/- or. above,· including such suits or other proceed. ings instituted before 1st August, 1978. The jurisdictioni of the District Court was in respect of any other case including a case arising out of an appeal suit or other proceeding instituted before such date. The legislature has continued to use the phrase "cases arising out of original suits". The interpretation placed upon this phrase by the Full Beoch in Har Prasad Singh"s case (AIR 1973 All. 390) will apply. The revisional jurisdiction would hence not extend 'to cases arising out of the disposal of appeals or revisions by the District Court. The proviso is also in the same terms as the proviso added in 1973 namely, it uses the phrase cases arifiing out of original suits or other proceedings". As already seen, it will not cover cases arising out of disposal of appeals or revisions.

The words "or o~er proceeding8" in the! phrase "cases arising out of original suits ·or other proceedings" refer to ll' proceedings of final nature. These words have been added in order to bring within the purview of the revisional jurisdiction ordern passed iri proceedings . of an origill! ll nature, which are not of the nature of suits, like arbitration proceeding11. This phrase cannot include decisions of appeals or revisions, because then the legislature will be deemed to have contradicted itself. The words "or other proceed- . ings" have to be read ejusdem generis with the words "original suits". They will not include appeals or revisions. The phrase "in any other case" used with reference to the District G:ourt will refer to cases arising out of original (1) Jupitor Chit Fund (Pvt) Ltd. v. Dwarka Diesh (FB) AIR 1979 All. 218 at- 225 . suits of the value of less than Rs. 20,000/- and also cases arising out of other proceedings of an original nature of a valuation below Rs.

20,000/-". Ordinarily whe'n a State legislation is being interpreted the meaning received by it in the High Court as the settled intent should rarely • be disturbed by this Court unless the error is so egregious; the • · impact goes beyond the State or like legislation elsewhere and decisions of the High Courts thereon may lead to confusion and uncertainty. Here llo such consideration arises and the reasoning of the High Court strikes us as sound. · The residuary power is with the District Court. The High Court has no revisional power under s. 115 unless the case arises out ol an original suit or other proceeding i. e. other original proceeding decided by the District Court or where the case arises from a snit of and above Rs. 20,000/- in value. If thl' District Court has decided, not in its original jurisdiction, then the case, be it a revisional or appellate order, is 'not amenable to the High Court's revisional jurisdiction.

Of course, if the case arises out of suits or other proceeding of the value of Rs. 20,000/- and above, the High Court has revisory power. All other cases fall . outside and become final at the District Court level. After all, our District Courts are easier of access for litigants, and the High Courts; especially in large States like Uttar Pradesh, are 'untouchable' and 'unapproachable' for agrestic populations and even urban middle classes. Nor is there ground to distrust the District Judges. A hierarchy ponent. The short te&t to refuse revisory juriscliction to the High Court is to ascertain whether the decision sought to be challenged is in a case arising out of a suit of the valuation of Rs. 20,000/- and more. If the answer is 'yes' then the High Court has revisory power, but if the . . suit from which the case arises and in which the decision is made is one where the valuation is less than! Rs.

20,000/• then the litigation cannot travel beyond the District Court except in that class of cases where the decision is taken for the first time by the District Court itself in a case arising out of an original proceeding. From this angle, none of the Special Leave Petitions sui'vive. Special Leave Petition fl No. 9945 of 1979 is a case where the District Judge dis)JOISed of an appeal and the revision to the Hi&h Court was directed agaiRst the \ appellate order. The subject-matter of the suit being below Rs. · 20,000/- in valuation, the High Court was right in refusing to exercise any revisional power. Special Leave Petition No. 10550 of 1979 falls ih the same category and must be dismissed. The result in Special Leave Petition No. 8857 of 1979· is equally fatal and for the same lethal reason. Bef. ore we part with the ·case, we may make . a general observation in the hope that it may have value as legislative guidance. Democ- ·,,,..

-r racy, in a vast country, of diversity, demographic immensity, logistic 0 · difficulty and large-scale indigency, makes decentralisation ;i. nd imperative of Administration. Access to Justice also implies early finality within reach of the rich and the poor. · These considerations pel'- suaded the U. P. State, one of the direst in poverty, largest in popula- "' . tion, and most agrestic in life-style, to attempt a tepid procedural reform in the field of revision to the High Court in litigations of lesser financial stakes. Judicia! reform is upto now a tinkering exercise, not .. an engineering project but even that little tinkering is fiercely challenged as litigative anathema by the profession which is unfortunate. S. R. Petitiona, dismissed.