Keyword(s):
City of Bangalore, City Civil Court, High Court, Judge, Law
STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS
I
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 Part IV-2A (Extraordinary) No. 478 dated 16.5.1979 at
page 14.)
II
Amendment Act 23 of 1980.- The Bangalore City Civil Court Bill as passed by both Houses
of the legislature was published as an Act after obtaining the assent of the President. ” City of
Bangalore” is defined in section 2 (2) of the said Act to mean the area comprised within the limits
specified in Annexure B of the Schedule to the Notification No. HUD 4 MNX 79 dated 6th March
- The said Notification has been rescinded. It therefore became necessary to specify the
area of “City of Bangalore” for the purposes of the Bangalore City Civil Court.
The High Court had originally proposed that the said Court would try civil cases only.
Subsequently, the High Court recommended that the presiding Officers of the said Court would
try criminal cases also. Accordingly, the High Court recommended that the area of the “City of
Bangalore” may be the area declared to be a metropolitan area under Section 8 of the Cr. P.C.
The High Court also recommended that,-
(i) the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court of Small Causes in Bangalore may be increased to
Rs. 10, 000;
(ii) all proceedings pending in the District Court, Court of the Civil Judge and the Munsiff’s
Court be transferred to the City Civil Court instead of to the High Court as at present ; and
(iii) provision be made to dispense with the giving of notices to parties after the appeals,
applications, suits etc., are transferred to the City Civil Court or the Small Causes Court.
In order to enable the establishment of the Bangalore City Civil Court very early and as the
Legislative Council was not in Session, the Bangalore City Civil Courts (Amendment) Ordinance,
1980 providing for these matters was promulgated. Subsequently the High Court suggested
certain other provisions of a procedural and clarificatory nature. They have also been
incorporated in the Bill which is intended to replace the Ordinance.
(Published in the Karnataka Gazette Part IV-2A (Extraordinary) No.557 dated 8.7.1980 at
Page 6)
III
Amendment 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 3
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 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.
Further, the subordinate Courts in the neighboring 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.
DISCLAIMER: This document is being furnished to you for your information by Blinkvisa. The contents of this document have been obtained from sources Blinkvisa believes to be reliable. These contents have not been independently verified, and PRS makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy, completeness or correctness. In some cases the Principal Act and/or Amendment Act may not be available. Principal Acts may or may not include subsequent amendments. For authoritative text, please contact the relevant state department concerned or refer to the latest government publication or the gazette notification. Any person using this material should take their own professional and legal advice before acting on any information contained in this document. Blinkvisa or any persons connected with it do not accept any liability arising from the use of this document. Blinkvisa or any persons connected with it shall not be in any way responsible for any loss, damage, or distress to any person on account of any action taken or not taken on the basis of this document.
