23 February 2024 Civil Procedure Code Jurisdiction >> Constitution & Law Procedure  

A recent judgment in India grapples with the legal intricacies of jurisdiction and amendment applications in the context of changing court thresholds. The case involves a situation where:

• The pecuniary jurisdiction of the High Court (monetary limit for handling cases) has been increased.
• A pending suit valued below the new threshold is slated for transfer to a lower court (City Civil Court) due to the change.

The crux of the matter lies in determining whether the High Court retains the authority to consider an application seeking to amend the suit's valuation, potentially exceeding the new threshold and retaining the case within its jurisdiction.

The judgment delves into the relevant legal framework, including:

• Pre-Amendment:
• City Civil Court's jurisdiction capped at Rs. 1 Crore (Section 3 of the City Civil Court Act).
• Provision for transferring relevant suits from the High Court to the City Civil Court (Section 4A).
• Amendment Act 2023:
• City Civil Court's jurisdiction expanded to Rs. 10 Crore (Section 3).
• Mandate for transferring all pending suits from the High Court falling under the City Civil Court's new purview (amended Section 4A).

Arguments presented by both parties:

• Plaintiffs:
• Cite the precedent set by the Delhi High Court's Full Bench decision in Subhashini Malik (2016), where the court asserted its authority to adjudicate on an amendment application seeking to increase valuation and retain the suit despite losing jurisdiction due to an increased threshold.
• Advocate for streamlining the process, arguing against transferring the case for amendment and potentially back to the High Court if the amendment is allowed.
• Defendants:
• Contend that the High Court automatically loses jurisdiction upon the amendment application, necessitating the transfer of the entire suit, including the application, to the City Civil Court as stipulated by the mandatory transfer language used in the amended Section 4A ("shall stand transferred").
• Differentiate their stance from the Subhashini Malik case based on the distinct wording employed in the Delhi Amendment Act ("may transfer" vs. "shall stand transferred").

The judgment appears to favor the plaintiffs' position based on the following observations:

• It acknowledges the existing legal conflict on this issue and highlights the majority verdict in Subhashini Malik supporting the High Court's role in deciding the amendment application.
• It draws attention to the difference in wording between the Delhi Amendment Act and the amended Section 4A, suggesting the latter might imply a stricter and more automatic transfer process.

Conclusion:

This case highlights the nuanced legal interpretations and potential conflicts arising from changing jurisdictional thresholds and their interaction with amendment applications. The final judgment is yet to be delivered and will clarify the legal position in this specific case, potentially impacting future similar situations.

  BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2023