ORDER

Shivaprakash, J.

1. This Appeal is presented by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, National Highways, Dharwar, against the judgment and award dated 28.11.1991 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and C.J.M. (Reference Court for short) Dharwar in L.A.C. No. 302 of 1988.

2. In view of the amendment to Section 5 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 (the Act for short) enjoining that all first appeals presented to this Court, save as otherwise provided in the Act, shall be heard by a Bench consisting of not less than two Judges or by a Single Judge depending upon the value of subject matter, a preliminary question is raised whether the value of subject matter in a suit or other proceedings, or the value of subject matter in an appeal ought to be considered for the purpose of ascertaining the forum for hearing the Appeal.

3. Before the amendment all first appeals irrespective of the value of subject matter were required, save as otherwise provided in the Act, to be heard by a Bench consisting of not less than two Judges of this Court.

4. Since the answer to the above question is of general application to all first appeals in this Court, save as otherwise provided in the Act, at our instance apart from Sri Venkatachalaiah, Government Advocate appearing for the appellant and Sri T.S. Ramachandra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent in this appeal, learned Counsel Sriyuths V. Tarakaram, S.P. Shankar, R.I. D'sa and Jayakumar Patil made submissions to enable this Court to clear the doubt. We place on record our appreciation for the valuable assistance given by the learned Counsel in this regard.

5. The relevant provisions of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 are reproduced below.

The Karnataka High Court Act, 1961.

"2. Definitions.- In this Act, -

(1) (2) XXX XXX XXX

(3) "First Appeal" means an appeal which, under any law for the time being in force lies to the High Court, from a judgment, decree or order, made by a subordinate civil court in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction.

(4) (5) (6) xxx xxx xxx "

Section 5 of the Act as it read before the amendment:

"5. First Appeals.- Save as otherwise provided in this Act, all First Appeals, Criminal Appeals and all cases referred to the High Court for confirmation of a sentence of death, shall be heard by a Bench consisting of not less than two Judges of the High Court;

Provided that a Criminal Appeal from a judgment in which no sentence of death or imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a period exceeding seven years, is passed against any accused, who has preferred an appeal, may be heard by a single Judge of the High Court."

Section 5 of the Act as amended reads thus:

"5. First Appeals.- Save as otherwise provided in this Act,-

(i) all First Appeals against a decree or order passed in a suit or other proceedings, the value of subject matter of which is rupees three lakhs or more shall be heard by a Bench consisting of not less than two Judges of the High Court and other First Appeals shall be heard by a Single Judge of the High Court.

(ii) All Criminal Appeals against Judgments in which sentence of death or imprisonment for life is passed and against judgments of acquittal in cases in which offences are punishable with death or imprisonment for life shall be heard by a Bench consisting of not less than two Judges of High Court and other Criminal Appeals shall be heard by a Single Judge of the High Court."

The provisions of Section 5 of the Act was amended by Act No. 6 of 1994 - The Karnataka High Court (Amendment) Act, 1993 - which received the assent of the Governor on 8.3.1994 and published in the Gazette of even date.

6. In view of the ambiguity in the amended provision regarding the valuation relevant for the purpose of determining the forum, we thought it appropriate to refer to the Arrears Committee Report headed by Shri V.S. Malimath, the then Chief Justice of this Court. In the Report, on the question of hearing of Regular First Appeals, the Committee while referring to the recommendation of the Law Commission of India in its 124th report that Rules of the High Courts should be amended so as to provide for hearing by a single Judge of every matter when it comes to the High Court except where the statute provides to the contrary, has recommended that appeals up to the value of Rupees two lakhs should lie to the District Court and "having regard to the magnitude of the claim and importance of the matter, that appeals involving the subject matter of the value of rupees three lakhs and above should be heard only by a Division Bench of the High Courts."

7. In the Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Karnataka High Court (Amendment) Bill 1993, it is stated that "on the suggestions of the Arrears Committee of the High Court, the High Court of Karnataka recommended amendment of Section 5 of the Karnataka High Court Act to facilitate quick disposal of the cases at lesser cost. Hence, the Bill."

8. We have referred to the report of the Arrears Committee and the Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Bill for "the purpose of ascertaining the conditions prevailing at the time the Bill was introduced and the purpose for which the amendment was made." (See Utkal Confectioners and Joinery (P) Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Orissa and also Cheran Taong Shang and Anr., v. Commander S.D. Baijal and Ors.).

9. Section 19 of the Civil Courts Act provides for appeals from the decrees and orders passed by a Civil Judge in original suits and proceedings of a civil nature to the District Court depending upon the amount or value of the subject matter of the original suit or proceedings. There is no ambiguity whatsoever in the language since it is expressed in clear terms that the value of the subject matter of "the original suit or proceeding" determines the forum. It was so held in MALKOJI RAO vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER 1977(1) KLJ 173; SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, DANDELI vs. L.K. SUNTHAKAR 1989(2) KLJ 395. These Decisions cited by the learned Counsel are of no assistance in interpreting the amended provisions of Section 5 of the Act.

10. One view canvassed before us regarding the correct construction to be placed on the amended provisions of Section 5 of the Act was that if the intention was to provide for appeals to the Division Bench on the basis of the value of the subject matter in the appeal there was no need to say that all First Appeals "against a decree or order passed in a suit or other proceedings," the value of subject matter of which is three lakhs or more shall be heard by a Bench consisting of not less than two Judges: instead it should have read that "all First Appeals the value of subject matter of which" giving no room for doubt as to which of the valuation should be taken into account for determining the forum. The other view expressed by the learned Counsel was that it was necessary to express it in so many words since the definition of "First Appeal" in Section 2(3) extracted above does not include "other proceedings." It was also pointed out to us that the punctuation mark 'comma' would not have been placed after the words "against a decree or order passed in a suit or other proceedings," thus interrupting the continuity of thought, if the intention was that the value of subject matter of a suit or other proceedings should determine the forum, and that it would have been placed immediately after the opening words "all First Appeals." It was submitted by the learned Counsel that the punctuation mark "comma" would make all the difference indicating that the pronoun "which" in the group of words "the value of subject matter of which" refers to the valuation of the subject matter of the appeals and not to valuation of the subject matter of "a suit or other proceedings."

11. It is a well accepted principle that ordinarily it is the value in the original proceedings that determines the jurisdiction of the Court and not the amount which may be found or decreed by the Court against which the appeal is preferred. But the tenor of the amended provision of Section 5 appears to lay emphasis on the value of the subject matter in the First Appeal and not the value of the subject matter in the suit or other proceedings. If we were to hold that the value of the subject matter in "a suit or other proceedings" is pivotal for determining the forum it may defeat the very purpose of the amendment. To illustrate, in a money suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs, if the suit were to be decreed say for Rs. 2,99,000.00, and if the plaintiff were to prefer appeal against the said judgment and decree as against the dismissal of his suit for the balance sum of Rs. 1000/-, the same has to be heard by a Bench consisting of not less than two Judges of this Court.

12. Accordingly, we hold that First Appeals the value of subject matter of which is three lakhs or more shall be heard by a Bench consisting of not less than two Judges of this Court and other First Appeals shall be heard by a Single Judge in terms of the amended provisions of Section 5 of the Act.