Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Repeal and savings. SCHEDULE. * * * * STATEMENTS OF OBJECTS AND REASONS I Act 11 of 1964.- There are at present five different enactments in force in the five Areas of the Mysore State to regulate the constitution, powers and jurisdiction of civil courts. It is proposed to have a uniform law on the subject. Hence this Bill. The following are the salient features of the Bill, namely:— (1) provision for three classes of Civil Courts subordinate to the High Court, namely:— (i) the Court of the District Judge called the District Court; (ii) the Court of the Civil Judge; and (iii) the Court of the Munsiff; (2) provision for the establishment of a District Court for each district or more than one district and for treating the City of Bangalore as a district; 3 (3) provision for the establishment of a Court of a Civil Judge for each district; or for part of a district or for more than one district; (4) provision for fixing and varying by the High Court with the approval of the State Government, the number of Civil Judges and Munsiffs to be appointed to the Court of a Civil Judge or Munsiff’s Court; (5) provision empowering the State Government to fix the locality of courts in consultation with the High Court; (6) provision for treating the Courts of Civil Judges (Senior Division) in the Bombay Area, the Courts of Civil Judges in the Mysore Area; and the Courts of Subordinate Judges, as Courts of Civil Judges; and for treating the Courts of Civil Judges (Junior Division) in the Bombay Area, the Courts of District Munsiffs in the Madras Area and the Courts of Munsiffs in the other Areas, as Munsiffs’ Courts; (7) conferment of unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction on the Court of a Civil Judge in respect of all original suits and proceedings of a civil nature; (8) provision for conferment of jurisdiction on the Munsiff’s Court in respect of all suits and proceedings of a civil nature of which the amount or value of the subject matter does not exceed five thousand rupees and on the recommendation of the High Court, the jurisdiction of any Munsiff’s Court may be extended by the State Government to all original suits and proceedings of a civil nature, the value of the subject matter of which does not exceed ten thousand rupees; (9) provision for appeals from decrees and orders passed by a Munsiff to the District Court; and transfer by the District Judge to the Court of the Civil Judge within his jurisdiction of appeals the value of the subject matter of which does not exceed five thousand rupees; (10) provision empowering the High Court to invest any Judge of a Court of Small Causes with powers to hear appeals from such decrees and orders of Munsiffs’ Courts as may be referred by the District Judges; (11) provision empowering the High Court to invest the Court of a Civil Judge and the Court of a Munsiff with small cause powers, not exceeding two thousand rupees in the case of a Court of a Civil Judge and not exceeding five hundred rupees in the case of a Court of a Civil Judge and not exceeding five hundred rupees in the case of a Court of a Munsiff. (Obtained from Notification No. 2487-LA, dated 04.05.1962) II Amending Act 42 of 1976.—The Karnataka Small Cause Court Act, 1964 provides for establishment of Courts of Small Causes. All suits of Civil 4 nature of which the value does not exceed five hundred rupees in cognisable by the Court of Small Causes. However the State Government may, by notification, direct that suits of which the value does not exceed Rs. 2000 shall be cognisable by the Court of Small Causes. It is now proposed to enhance the limit of Rs. 2000 to Rs. 3000 in Causes. The advantage is that the pressure on the Munsiffs’ Court will be reduced. Hence the Bill. (Published in the Karnataka Gazette (Extraordinary) Part IV-2A, dated 13th May 1976 as No. 2471 at page. 3.) III Amending 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. 478 at page. 14.) IV Amending 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. 5 Further, the subordinate Courts in the neighbouring States 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 repeated 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 Karnataka Gazette (Extraordinary) Part IV-2A, dated 28th March 1981 as No. 209 at page. 3.) V Amending 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.) VI Amending 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. (Published in the Karnataka Gazette (Extraordinary) Part IV-2A, dated 30th May 1988 as No. 351 at page. 4.) 6 VII 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]. VIII 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.] ***** 7 1[KARNATAKA ACT]1 No. 11 OF 1964 (First published in the 1[Karnataka Gazette]1 on the Nineteenth day of March, 1964.) THE 1[KARNATAKA]1 SMALL CAUSE COURTS ACT, 1964 (Received the assent of the President on the Fourth day of March, 1964.) (As Amended by Karnataka Acts 42 of 1976, 13 of 1980, 11 of 1981, 26 of 1985, 13 of 1989, 26 of 2007 and 30 of 2015) An Act to provide for a uniform law relating to Courts of Small Causes in the 1[State of Karnataka]1. WHEREAS it is expedient to provide for a uniform law relating to Courts of Small Causes in the 1[State of Karnataka]1; BE it enacted by the 1[Karnataka]1 State Legislature in the Fourteenth Year of the Republic of India as follows:—