Even modest homes in Delhi cost over ₹2 crore: Why Delhi High Court said pecuniary limits need reconsideration

Since even modest residential properties now cost more than ₹2 crore, people are compelled to file proceedings before the High Court instead of civil or district judges, the Delhi High Court recently said.

A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Tejas Karia made the observation while highlighting the importance of reconsidering the pecuniary limits of courts in the national capital

Pecuniary limits refer to the maximum or minimum monetary value of a case that a court can hear and decide. At present, civil and district judges in Delhi can hear cases valued at up to ₹2 crore.

The Court observed that such limits inevitably increase the inconvenience and cost associated with a litigation as even local disputes have to be decided by the High Court.

“It also cannot be ignored that, owing to the substantial increase in the value of immovable properties in Delhi, even disputes concerning comparatively modest residential properties frequently exceed the existing pecuniary threshold of Rs. 2,00,00,000/-. Consequently, civil suits seeking reliefs such as specific performance, possession, partition, declaration or injunction, which otherwise arise from local disputes within different parts of Delhi, are presently required to be instituted before this Court,” the Bench said.

The Court made these observations on July 10 in an order declining to halt presentation of the pecuniary jurisdiction report prepared by a committee of judges before the full court.

The report was prepared by a committee of seven judges constituted to consider a proposal to increase the pecuniary jurisdiction of district courts from ₹2 crores to ₹20 crores. 

The Bench said pecuniary jurisdiction of the High Court is governed by the provisions of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, which can only be amended by the parliament. However, it said the High Court was not denuded of the authority to examine issues affecting the administration of justice or to express its opinion and make recommendations in this regard.

The Court said the national capital currently has 11 judicial districts where adequate infrastructure has been established. 

It added that in the past six decades since the enactment of the Delhi High Court Act, the population of the city has increased manifold and commercial activity has also expanded substantially, making the national capital one of the foremost commercial centres of the country.

In this context, the Court said judges, members of the Bar and the ministerial establishment are merely facilitators in the administration of justice, whose collective endeavour must always be directed towards ensuring that justice is delivered efficiently, effectively and as close to the citizens as practicable.

“Whether these changed circumstances justify a further revision of the pecuniary jurisdiction is a matter which Parliament alone may ultimately determine. The present exercise undertaken by the Committee is confined only to examining the issue and placing its views before the Full Court of this Court,” the Bench said.

[Read Order]