SMT. NARAYANAMMA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Judgment

1. The Appellants present appeal (W.A.No.200260/2025) impugning the judgment dated 24.09.2025 [‘impugned order’] passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.201536/2024 (GM-RES). Appellant No.2 similarly aggrieved. His appeal, RFA No.200009/2025, arising from the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2024 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Sedam in O.S.No.49/2018, is stated to be pending before the Kalaburagi Bench of this Court. He was impleaded in the present appeal by an order dated 30.10.2025.

2. The Appellants and Writ Petitioner have filed their respective appeal and petition, inter alia, praying that the Karnataka Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2023 [‘Civil Courts Amendment Act’] and the Karnataka High Court (Amendment) Act, 2023 [‘High Court Amendment Act’] be declared as ultra vires the Constitution of India. The Civil Courts Amendment Act and the High Court Amendment Act are collectively referred to as ‘the impugned legislations’. PREFATORY FACTS

3. The Appellant No.1’s writ petition, W.P.No.201536/2024, was filed in the context of the Appellant No.1 being relegated to agitate - 5 - WP No. 17588 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200260 of 2025 his appeal before the competent District Court. The Appellant No.1 had filed a suit, being O.S.No.98/2016, before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Raichur, which was dismissed by a judgment and decree dated 23.04.2021 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Raichur. Appellant No.1 preferred an appeal against the said judgment and decree (which was numbered as RFA No.200060/2021). The Defendants in the suit had also filed a cross-appeal (numbered as RFA CROB. No.200005/2022). These appeals were pending before the Kalaburagi Bench of this Court when the impugned legislations were published on 19.06.2024 resulting in Appellant No.1 filing W.P.No.201536/2024 on

22.06.2024 before a Single Judge of this Court.

4. The Civil Courts Amendment Act and the High Court Amendment Act were published the Karnataka Gazette (Extraordinary) on 19.06.2024. By virtue of the said amendments, the appeals pending before the High Court (RFA No.200060/2021 and RFA CROB. No.200005/2022) would be transferred to the competent District Court.

5. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge partly allowed the said petition. Whilst the learned Single Judge upheld the - 6 - WP No. 17588 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200260 of 2025 constitutional validity of the impugned legislations, the retrospective effect given to the amendments to the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964 [‘the 1964 Act’] with effect from 28.08.2007 was set aside and the said amendments were held to operate prospectively. The learned Single Judge further held that the judgments rendered under the unamended provisions would remain valid and the impugned legislations would not affect such proceedings that were already concluded. However, the pending Regular First Appeals were directed to be transferred to the competent appellate courts in accordance with the impugned legislations.

6. The Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.17588/2024 (GM-RES) also seeks to impugn the impugned legislations as being ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is relevant to note that by an order dated 03.07.2024 passed in W.P.No.17588/2024, operation and implementation of the impugned legislations was stayed.

7. The controversy in W.P.No.17588/2024 (GM-RES), covered by the judgment dated 24.09.2025, which is impugned in W.A.No.200260/2025. However, another learned Single Judge of this Court, by an order dated 19.11.2025, while examining the - 7 - WP No. 17588 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200260 of 2025 challenge in W.P.No.17588/2024, expressed reservations as to the correctness the Co-ordinate Bench's decision W.P.No.201536/2024, formulated points for reference to a Larger Bench and referred the matter for posting before a Larger Bench. Accordingly, the said writ petition came to be tagged along with W.A.No.200260/2025. THE IMPUGNED LEGISLATIONS

8. A tabular statement setting out Sections 17 and 19 of the 1964 Act, as they stood prior to the amendment, and the corresponding amendments introduced by the Civil Courts Amendment Act, is set out below: THE KARNATAKA CIVIL COURTS ACT 1964 Section Pre Amendment Post Amendment 17 Jurisdiction of Court of a Civil Judge— The jurisdiction of Court of a Civil Judge shall extend to all original suits and proceedings of a civil nature, not otherwise excluded from the Civil Judge jurisdiction, of which the amount or value of the subject-matter does not exceed five lakh rupees. In section 17 of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964 (Karnataka Act 21 of 1964) (hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act), for the words, “five lakh rupees” the words “fifteen lakh rupees” shall be substituted. 19 Appeals Judge— from Senior Civil For section 19 of the Principal Act, the following shall be substituted, namely,- Appeals from the decrees and orders passed by a Senior Civil Judge in original suits and proceedings of a civil nature, “19. Appeals from Senior Civil Judge.- Appeals from the decrees and orders - 8 - WP No. 17588 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200260 of 2025 passed by a Senior Civil Judge in original suits and proceedings of a civil nature, shall, when such appeals are allowed by law, lie to the District Court.” shall, when such appeals are allowed by law, lie,— (1) to the District Court, when the amount or value of the subject- matter of the original suit or proceeding does not exceed ten lakh rupees. (2) to the High Court, in other cases.

9. It is also relevant to refer to Section 4 of the Civil Courts Amendment Act, which reads as under:

4. Power to remove difficulty. All amendments made to the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964 (Karnataka Act 21 of 1964), by this amendment Act shall come into force retrospectively with effect from 28.08.2007. If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964, as amended by this Act, the State Government may, as occasion arises, by an order published in the Official Gazette, do anything, Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964 amended by this Act, which appears to it to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of removing the difficulty: the provisions of inconsistent with Provided that, no such order shall be made after the expiry of a period of two years from the date of commencement of this Act.”

10. By virtue of the Karnataka High Court (Amendment) Act, 2023, Sections 2 and 5 of the Principal Act (The Karnataka High Court Act, 1961) ['the 1961 Act'] were amended. The said sections, as they stood prior to and post amendment, are set out in the following tabular statement: - 9 - WP No. 17588 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200260 of 2025

THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT Section Pre Amendment Post Amendment 2 Definitions.—In this Act,— (1) “Chief Justice” means the Chief Justice of the High Court of the State of Karnataka; (2) “Criminal Appeal” means an appeal which, under any law for the time being in force, lies to the High Court from an order or sentence passed by a subordinate criminal court in the exercise of its original criminal jurisdiction; (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) “Full Bench” means a Bench consisting of not less than three Judges of the High Court; (5) “High Court” means the High Court of the State of Karnataka; (6) “Second Appeal” means an appeal which, under any law for the time being in force, from a judgment, decree or order passed by a subordinate civil court in the exercise of its appellate civil jurisdiction. the High Court Court In section 2 of the Karnataka High 1961 (Karnataka Act 05 of 1962) (herein after referred to as the Principal Act),- Act, for sub-section (i) following shall be substituted, namely,- (3), the High Court, “(3) “First Appeal” means an appeal which, under any law for the time being in force, lies from a Judgment, Decree or an Order made by a City Civil Judge in of Original Jurisdiction appealable orders Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) by a subordinate Civil Court.” including exercise (ii) for sub-section (6), following shall be substituted, namely,- “(6) “Second Appeal” means an appeal which, under any law for the time being in force, lies to the High Court, from a Judgment, Decree or an Order made by a Senior Civil Judge or District Judge exercise Appellate Jurisdiction.” 5 appeals.—Save First provided in this Act,— otherwise (i) all First Appeals against a decree or suit or other in a order passed proceedings, the value of subject matter of which exceeds fifteen lakh rupees shall be heard by a Bench consisting of not less In section 5 of the Principal Act, for clause (i), the following shall be substituted, namely,- “(i) All First Appeals shall be heard by a Single Judge of the High Court.” - 10 - WP No. 17588 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200260 of 2025 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 Judgements 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 the High Court and other Criminal Appeals shall be heard by a Single Judge of the High Court.

11. It is also relevant to refer to Section 4 of the High Court Amendment Act. The same is reproduced below: "4. Power to Remove Difficulty.- If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, as amended by this Act, the State Government may, as occasion arises, by an order published the Official Gazette, do anything, not inconsistent with the provisions of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, amended by this Act, which appears to it to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of removing the difficulty: Provided that, no such order shall be made after the expiry of a period of two years from the date of commencement of this Act."

12. The effect of the amendments to the 1964 Act has been summarised in the impugned order as under: "i. All appeals from the decrees and orders of Senior Civil Judges will now lie to District Court without any pecuniary limits. ii. This removes the earlier distinction where appeal from suits valued above Rs.10,00,000/- had to be filed in the High Court. - 11 - WP No. 17588 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200260 of 2025 iii. The amendment is given retrospective effect from 28.08.2007."

13. The import of the amendments to the 1961 Act is has been observed by the impugned order as under: "i. First Appeal to the High Court will now mean only those appeals arising from the judgment and decree passed by City Civil Judges and excludes the judgment and decree passed from Senior Civil Judges in Districts. ii. All First Appeals to High Court shall now be heard by a Single Judge, irrespective of the pecuniary limits."

14. It is in the aforesaid background that we have heard the learned counsel for the parties. SUBMISSIONS: I. On behalf of the Appellants and the Petitioner

15. Mr. K.N. Phanindra, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Vivek Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, advanced arguments on behalf of the writ Petitioner while Mr. Ameetkumar Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel, advanced arguments on behalf of the Appellants. They contended that the impugned legislations violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India as they are manifestly arbitrary. It is also contended that the impugned amendment to the 1964 Act is manifestly arbitrary as it divests the High Court of its jurisdiction to - 12 - WP No. 17588 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200260 of 2025 entertain Regular First Appeals and confers the same on the competent District Courts with retrospective effect. They pointed out that the impugned legislations do not have any saving clause and therefore, the import of the said enactments would render all the Regular First Appeals decided by the High Court from 28.08.2007 as without jurisdiction. They state that this rendered the impugned legislations manifestly arbitrary and therefore, the same are liable to be set aside.

16. It is also contended that although the State Government had issued an order dated 24.06.2024 purportedly in exercise of powers under Section 4 of the Civil Courts Amendment Act, clarifying that the amended provisions would be operative prospectively with effect from 19.06.2024, the same was without jurisdiction as the State Government has no power to amend a legislative enactment by any executive or administrative order.

17. Next, they contended that the impugned enactments would not address the issue of expeditious disposal of Regular First Appeals pending before this Court. The only effect would be to overburden the District Judiciary (Karnataka Higher Judicial Service). It was further submitted that the impugned legislations - 13 - WP No. 17588 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200260 of 2025 were made without any consultation with the High Court on the administrative side and, therefore, the impugned legislations are liable to be set aside.

18. The learned Counsel referred to Section 13 of the 1964 Act, which requires the State Government to consult the High Court for any change in the local limits of jurisdiction of any District Court or a Court of any Civil Judge. It is contended that similar consultation would also be required for changing the appellate jurisdiction or for varying the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Courts. They also submitted that the failure to engage in prior consultation strikes at the foundation of constitutional governance and, therefore, impugned legislations must be struck down as violative of the Constitution of India.

19. Mr. Vivek Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ Petitioner, contended that the right of an appeal is vested with the parties on the institution of the suit or, if not, on the date of filing the appeal. He referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shyam Sunder and Others v. Ram Kumar and Another1 in support of his contention that an appeal is the continuation of the 1 (2001) 8 SCC 24 - 14 - WP No. 17588 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200260 of 2025 suit and that any statutory amendment that amends substantive rights during the pendency of the suit would not affect the vested rights of the parties. He referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Neena Aneja and Another v. Jai Prakash Associates Limited2 and submitted that the change in jurisdiction during the pendency of the proceedings would not affect the pending proceedings. He also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India and Another v. Union of India and Others3 and drew attention to paragraph 15 of the said decision which reads as under: "The Legislative power either introduce enactments for the first time or to amend the enacted law with retrospective effect, is not only subject to the question of competence but is also subject to several judicially recognized limitations with some of which we are at present concerned. The first is the requirement that the words used retrospective operation. The second is that the reasonable and not retrospectivity must be excessive or harsh, otherwise it runs the risk of being struck down as unconstitutional. The third is apposite where the legislation is introduced to overcome a judicial decision. Here the power cannot be used to subvert the decision without removing the statutory basis of the decision." expressly provide clearly

20. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that retrospective application of the impugned legislations is harsh and onerous. And,