LexVISHNU AWATAR ETC. versus SHIV AUTAR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
' ... ' 973 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 A B c . 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 D 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 ae- certain 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 the High. Court bas revisory1power, 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 E G H 974 SIJPRBMB COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 S.C.R. A judicial system. If the Supreme Court has a super-Supreme Court above it, it is <doubtful whether many of its verdicts will survive, judging by the frequency with which it diffeno from itself. [979 P,.GJ 8 c D Observation Democracy, in a vast country of diversity, demographic immensity, logistic difficulty and larg'e-sca!e indigency, makea decentralisation an . imperative of Administration. Ae<:eas to Justice also implies early finality within reach of the rich and the poor. Theae considerations persuaded the U.P. State, one of Ill& direst in pover:ty, largest in population, 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. Judicial reform is upto now a tinkering exercise, not 8Jl engineering project but even that little tinkering is fiercely challenged as litigative anathema by the profession which is unfortunate. [980 G-H, 981 A-BJ CIVIL .APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 9945, 10550, 8857 of 1979. · From the Judgments and Orders dated 23-7-1979, 25-9-1979 and 18-7-1979 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Revision Nos. 3832/ 78, 2042/79 & 264/76. Manoj Swarup for the Petitioner in SLP Nos. 9945 & 8857. Pramod Swarup for the Petitioners in SLP No. 10550.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.