Court affirms that Registry cannot bar access to justice by refusing petitions below Rs. 2 crores; jurisdictional objections must be judicially resolved
In a landmark decision, the Delhi High Court has quashed an administrative order that barred the filing of execution petitions for decrees valued below Rs. 2 crores. The judgment, delivered by a division bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring access to justice and delineates the boundaries of administrative authority within the court system.
The case, titled Asian Patent Attorneys Association (Indian Group) v. Registrar General Delhi High Court, revolved around the contentious administrative order issued on November 17, 2016, following amendments to the Delhi High Court Act in 2015. The order directed the court's Registry not to accept execution petitions below the stipulated pecuniary threshold, asserting that such matters fell within the jurisdiction of district courts.
Senior Advocate Ms. Swathi Sukumar, representing the petitioner, argued that the administrative directive infringed upon the litigant's right to judicial recourse. Citing Section 37 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, she contended that the court which issued the decree retains jurisdiction to execute it, notwithstanding changes in pecuniary jurisdiction. Her argument was fortified by precedents, including the Supreme Court ruling in Merla Ramanna v. Nallaparaju, which elucidates that jurisdictional shifts do not inherently divest the original court of its execution powers.
The court's judgment emphasized two pivotal points: Firstly, Section 4 of the Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 2015, does not empower the imposition of a filing threshold bar on execution petitions. Administrative orders should serve to facilitate rather than restrict judicial processes. Secondly, the fundamental principle of access to justice dictates that no administrative order can preclude a litigant from filing a petition. Jurisdictional objections, if any, should be assessed by the court on the judicial side, not by the Registry.
Justice Hari Shankar noted, "There can never be any threshold bar to a party filing a matter before the Registry of a Court. It is open to the Registry to raise an objection, but the matter must be placed before the Court if jurisdictional objections arise."
The decision reaffirms the judiciary's role in safeguarding litigants' rights to have their petitions heard and adjudicated upon, irrespective of administrative directives. It clarifies that the Registry can object to jurisdiction but cannot refuse to accept petitions; such disputes must be resolved by a judge.
The judgment partially allows the writ petition, setting aside the administrative order to the extent that it restricted the Registry from accepting execution petitions based on pecuniary value. The court did not venture into the realm of determining jurisdiction for entertaining petitions, leaving it to the discretion of the judges on the judicial side.
This decision is expected to have far-reaching implications for the administration of justice, ensuring that litigants can approach the court without undue hindrance and reinforcing the judiciary's commitment to uphold the rule of law.
Bottom Line:
The Registry cannot impose a threshold bar on filing execution petitions on the basis of pecuniary jurisdiction. The decision to entertain or not entertain such petitions lies with the Court on the judicial side.
Statutory provision(s): Delhi High Court Act, 1966 Section 5(2), Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 2015 Section 4, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 37
