NEW DELHI: A representation has been made to the Delhi High Court by a lawyer to increase the pecuniary jurisdiction of civil courts here, which is presently at upto Rs 3 lakh, on the ground that it would reduce the burden of cases before district courts.
Lawyer Amit Sahni, in his representation dated August 14, said that while the high court and the district courts have witnessed updates in their pecuniary limit from "time to time to suit the dynamics of contemporary legal scenario", the last amendment in the limit for civil courts was made in 2003.
It is stated that at present, there is "improper distribution of pecuniary jurisdiction" amongst the courts in the national capital as the pecuniary jurisdiction of high court increased from Rs 25,000 in 1969 to above Rs 2 crore in 2015 and pecuniary jurisdiction of district court increased from up to Rs 20 lakh in 2003 to up to Rs 2 crore in 2018, yet the civil courts remained stagnant.
"The pecuniary jurisdiction of civil judge level has not been amended and it is still up to Rs 3 lakh. The distribution of pecuniary jurisdiction of civil judges was proportionately done on earlier occasions at the time of amendments but from 2003 onwards there is no increase in pecuniary jurisdiction of civil judges posted at Delhi district courts," the representation reads.
The representation asserts that there is no property in Delhi which is now worth Rs 3 lakh only and the monetary limit imposed upon civil judges was "on extremely lower side".
The representation highlights that although the officers selected in Delhi Judicial Services are the finest judicial officers, the civil judges here "adjudicating cases having pecuniary jurisdiction upto 3 years only" when their counterparts in other states enjoy unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction.
"It is requested that appropriate and expeditious steps must be taken in order to increase the pecuniary jurisdiction of the civil judges level posted at district courts, Delhi to eradicate the stagnation of jurisdiction and to reduce the burden of the district judges/ additional district judges," the representation has urged.