Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
5 Opportunity is taken to incorporate certain other consequential amendments.— (Published in the Karnataka Gazette (Extraordinary) Part IV-2A, dated 8th November 1976 as No. 4421 at page. 7–8.) IV Act 8 of 1978.—Section 23 of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964 empowers the High Court to invest a Civil Judge with all or any powers of the District Judge under several enactments. One of these is the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (Central Act 39 of 1925). As it was felt that the power to issue succession certificates and probates or letters of Administration should be given to the Munsiffs also in addition to the Civil Judges, in the interest of the litigant public residing in the moffusil areas, new section 23-A was inserted by the section 5 or the Karnataka Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 1976 and as a corollary section 23 (1) (iv) of the Civil Courts Act and section 265 and 388 of the Indian Succession Act were repealed. The Karnataka Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 1976 which has been assented to by the Governor has not yet come into force. The High Court is of the view that as the amendment Act has amended the Indian Succession Act, it requires the assent of the President and as the same has not been obtained the said Act is void. State Government is of the opinion that Presidents’ assent to the amendments is not necessary as what has been amended by sections 4 and 5 of the amendment Act is the Civil Courts Act and not the Succession Act and omission of the provisions of the Succession Act by section 10 of the Amendment Act is only a consequential amendment. However, in view of High Court’s opinion and the harassment that may result to the litigant public should the said provisions be struck down, it is proposed to omit the said three sections 4, 5 and 10, and to bring the rest of the provisions into force at once. Since the Legislative Assembly was not in session an Ordinance was promulgated. This Bill seeks to replace the said Ordinance. (Published in the Karnataka Gazette (Extraordinary) Part IV-2A, dated 20th March 1978 as No. 276 at page. 3.) V Act 28 of 1978.—The Karnataka Civil Courts Act at present permits the High Court to invest only Civil Judges with the powers of District Judges under the Indian Succession Act. The amendments proposed by the Bill seek to empower the High Court to invest Munsiffs too with the said powers. A provision has also been made for appeal to the Civil Judge against the order passed by the Munsiff and to the District Court where the order is 6 passed by a Civil Judge. The other amendments are consequential amendments. The High Court has agreed to the proposal. Hence the Bill. (Published in the Karnataka Gazette (Extraordinary) Part IV-2A, dated 1st August 1978 as No.1098 at page. 3.) VI Act 13 of 1980.—City Civil Courts are functioning in the Metropolitan Cities of Bombay, Madras, Calcutta, Hyderabad and Ahmedabad. The High Court is of the opinion that a City Civil Court on the pattern of the City Civil Courts functioning in the other cities above-named may be constituted for the City of Bangalore also. When such a City Civil Court is constituted, the Sessions Judge will deal exclusively with criminal work and the supervision of the work of the Magistrates’ Courts. As there will be an appeal only to the High Court against the decision of the City Civil Court, this would not only minimise the delay in disposal of cases but also reduce the cost of litigation. The Government have therefore, considered it necessary to constitute a City Civil Court for the City of Bangalore. It is also proposed to abolish vacation in civil courts. Hence this Bill. (Published in the Karnataka Gazette (Extraordinary) Part IV-2A, dated 16th May 1979 as No.473 at page. 14.) VII Act 11 of 1981.—In view of the heavy arrears of cases in the Subordinate Civil Courts, it was considered necessary to increase the number of working days of all such courts. Accordingly, the vacation to all such courts was reduced from 60 days to 30 days by amending the relevant provisions in the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964 and the Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act, 1964. In the Bangalore City Civil Court Act, 1979, the duration of vacation for the City Civil Court, Bangalore City was also fixed at 30 days. There have been a spate of representations from the various Bar Associations in the State protesting against the reduction of vacation for these courts and they have been requesting the Government for restoration of vacation to the Subordinate Courts to the full period of 60 days as before. 7 Further, the subordinate Courts in the neighbouring State of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala have vacations during summer, winter and Dasara totalling nearly 60 days or even more. In view of the repealed requests from the several Bar Associations in the State for the restoration of vacation to the full period of 60 days and in view of the recommendation made by the High Court in this behalf, it is considered necessary that the vacation for the Civil Courts may be restored to 60 days, instead of 30 days, as before. Hence the Bill. (Published in the Karnataka Gazette (Extraordinary) Part IV-2A, dated 28th March 1981 as No. 209 at page. 3.) VIII Act 26 of 1985.—With a view to provide uniform provision regarding vacations in the Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act, 1964, the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964 and the Bangalore City Civil Courts Act, 1979, it is considered necessary to amend the relevant sections of the said Acts. Opportunity is also taken to make provisions for appointment of Vacation Judges in the Karnataka Small Causes Court Act and other consequential changes. Hence the Bill. (Published in the Karnataka Gazette (Extraordinary) Part IV-2A, dated 26th July 1985 as No. 400 at page. 6.) IX Act 13 of 1989.—The pecuniary jurisdiction of the Courts of Munsiffs, Courts of small causes and of District court was fixed long back, at a time when the value of properties was far below their present value. In view of the appreciable increase in the value of properties, more and more litigants are forced to approach higher courts, instead of the lower courts as before, for getting necessary reliefs. Keeping in view the increase in the value of the properties, decrease in rupee value and increase in banking and business activities, it is proposed to increase the pecuniary jurisdiction of courts as follows:— Munsiffs Courts—From Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- Courts of Small Causes—From Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- District Courts, in relation to appeals—From Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- Hence the Bill. 8 (Published in the Karnataka Gazette (Extraordinary) Part IV-2A, dated 30th May 1988 as No. 351 at page. 4.) X Act 3 of 1994.—It is considered necessary to enhance the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judges and Munsiffs, who are invested with the jurisdiction to try suits cognizable by a Small Causes Court under Section 22 of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964, from rupees three thousand to twenty-five thousand in the case of the Court of Civil Judges and from rupees five hundred to three thousand in the case of Munsiff’s Court. The Karnataka Civil Courts (Amendment) Ordinance, 1993 was promulgated for the above purpose. This Bill seeks to replace the said Ordinance. Hence the Bill. (Obtained from L A Bill No. 26 of 1993 File No. LAW 64 LGN 93.) XI Act 16 of 1996.—One of the directive of the Supreme Court of India, in its judgement dated the 24th August, 1993 in the All India Judges Association versus the Union of India and others, is to bring about uniformity in the designations of judicial officers both in the Civil and Criminal sides. In order to implement the decision of the Supreme Court, it is necessary to amend the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964, suitably. Hence the Bill. (Obtained from L A Bill No. 19 of 1996, File No. DPAL 8 LGN 96.) XII Amending Act 26 of 2007.—The pecuniary jurisdiction of the Courts of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Civil Judge (Senior Division), Small Causes Courts and District Courts and of High Court was fixed long back, at a time when the value of the properties was far below their present value. In view of the appreciable increase in the value of properties, litigants are forced to approach higher courts, instead of lower courts as before, for getting necessary reliefs. Keeping in view the increase in the value of properties in rupee value and increase in banking and business activities, it is proposed to increase the pecuniary jurisdiction of courts. Hence the Bill. [L.A. Bill No. 34 of 2007] [Entry 65 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.] 9 XIII Amending Act 21 of 2009.- The first National Judicial Pay Commission has requested the High Courts and State Governments/Union Territories Administration to make necessary amendments to the term Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Civil Judge (Senior Division) mentioned in the respective enactments, rules, regulations, circulars etc., Therefore, it is considered necessary to amend the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964, to implement the above recommendations. Hence, the Bill. (LA Bill No.28 of 2009, File No.DPAL 31 Shasana 2008) (Entry 65 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.) XIV Amending Act 30 of 2015.- It is considered necessary to amend the Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act, 1964 (Karnataka Act 11 of 1964) and consequentially the Karnataka Civil Court Act, 1964 (Karnataka Act 21 of 1964) to provide for enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of the small causes courts in the State. Hence the Bill. [L.A. Bill No. 25 of 2015, File No. Samvyashae 33 Shasana 2014] [entry 65 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.] * * * * 10 1[KARNATAKA ACT]1 No. 21 OF 1964 (First published in the 1[Karnataka Gazette]1 on the Ninth day of April, 1964.) THE 1[KARNATAKA]1 CIVIL COURTS ACT, 1964. (Received the assent of the President on the Twenty-eighth day of March, 1964.) (As amended by Karnataka Acts 11 of 1965, 81 of 1976, 8 of 1978, 28 of 1978, 13 of 1980, 11 of 1981, 26 of 1985, 13 of 1989, 3 of 1994, 16 of 1996, 26 of 2007, 21 of 2009 and 30 of 2015) An Act to provide for a uniform law relating to the constitution, powers and jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in the 1[State of Karnataka]1 subordinate to the 1[High Court of Karnataka]1. WHEREAS it is expedient to provide for a uniform law relating to the constitution, powers and jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in the 1[State of Karnataka]1 subordinate to the 1[High Court of Karnataka]1; BE it enacted by the 1[Karnataka State]1 Legislature in the Fourteenth Year of the Republic of India as follows:—