The Delhi High Court recently set aside a 2016 administrative direction issued by the Court's Registrar, which barred the Registry from accepting execution petitions in money decree cases if the amount involved was ₹2 crore or less [Asian Patent Attorneys Association (Indian Group) v. Registrar General Delhi High Court].
A Division Bench of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that imposing such a monetary threshold for filing cases is not allowed under the law.
"It was not open to this Court, even with the approval of Hon’ble the Chief Justice, to impose a threshold bar on parties filing execution petitions in the Registry, in which the decree being executed, was for an amount below ₹ 2 crores, as has been done by the impugned Administrative Order," the Court held.
Litigants cannot be denied access to the court at the filing stage through administrative orders, the Court added.
“Even on the basic principle that there can be no threshold bar to access to a Court, therefore, we cannot sustain the impugned Administrative Order to the extent it directs the Registry of this Court not to accept execution petitions in which the decree is for an amount of less than ₹ 2 crores," the January 30 order stated.
The ruling came in a petition filed by the Asian Patent Attorneys Association (Indian Group), which challenged an administrative order issued by the Delhi High Court Registry on November 17, 2016.
The order had been passed after the Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 2015, increased the High Court’s pecuniary jurisdiction for hearing cases from ₹20 lakh to ₹2 crore.
Based on this change, the Registry stopped accepting fresh execution petitions involving decrees of up to ₹2 crore and directed such cases to the district courts instead.
In its January 30 ruling, the High Court distinguished between the administrative role of the Registry and the judicial role of the court. They held that the decision on whether a petition should be entertained lies solely with the court hearing the matter on the judicial side.
"The issue of whether to entertain the petition, or not to entertain the petition, therefore, vests with the Court which hears it on the judicial side. The litigant cannot, however, be barred access to the Court by an administrative direction to the Registry not to accept the petition, or any category of petitions," the Court said.
Elaborating on the limited function of the Registry, the Court added that objections on jurisdiction may be raised but cannot result in a refusal to register a case.
“Even if the answer which is provided by the party or the Counsel is not acceptable to the Registry, that does not empower the Registry to refuse to register the matter. If the Registry and the litigant are not able to arrive at a consensus regarding the maintainability of the proceeding, the Registry would have to place the matter before the Court to take a view as to whether the matter is within, or without, jurisdiction," the Court explained.
The Bench clarified that it is not deciding on whether such execution petitions should ultimately be heard by the High Court or by the district courts. That question, the Court said, must be determined by the judge before whom the matter is placed, in each case.
“We, therefore, do not venture any opinion on whether the execution petition would, or would not, be amenable to entertainment by the Court, which would appropriately lie within the province of the concerned learned Judge, or Judges, before whom the matter is placed on the judicial side,” the Court observed.
The Court proceeded to set aside the Registry's 2016 administrative order to the extent that it stopped the Registry from accepting filings of execution petitions concerning money decrees valued at ₹2 crores or less.
The Bench clarified that the Registry can still raise objections on jurisdiction, but if any dispute continues, the issue must be placed before the Court for a judicial decision.
Senior Advocate Swathi Sukumar along with advocates Shrawan Chopra, Vibhav Mithal, Achyut Tewari, Krisha Baweja and Ritik Raghuvanshi appeared for the Asian Patent Attorneys Association (Indian Group).
The Registrar General of the High Court was represented by advocates Amit George, Adhishwar Suri, Bhrigu A Pamidighantam, Vaibhav Gandhi, Rupam Jha, Medhavi Bhatia and Kartikey Puneesh.
[Read Order]