New Delhi, Jul 14 Delhi High Court lawyers will abstain from work on Wednesday to protest against a possible enhancement in the pecuniary jurisdiction of district courts here from Rs 2 crore to Rs 10 crore.
The decision to abstain from work for the second day in a row was taken at a meeting of the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) on Tuesday.
In the resolution, the DHCBA "deeply appreciated" the "full cooperation and solidarity extended by its members" to its decision.
According to sources privy to the developments, representatives of the Bar are likely to meet the Union law minister on Wednesday over the issue.
Enhancement of the district courts' pecuniary jurisdiction, or financial limit, from Rs 2 crore to Rs 20 crore has been a long-pending demand of the Coordination Committee of All District Court Bar Associations of Delhi.
However, the Delhi High Court Bar Association has opposed the move, citing its impact on the lawyers' practice, livelihood and professional interests.
Currently, the high court hears civil and commercial matters valued above Rs 2 crore, but with the proposed change, district courts will be able to hear cases valued up to Rs 10 crore.
Earlier, the DHCBA had resolved to abstain from work on July 14 in view of the high court's full court favouring the enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of the district courts from Rs 2 crore to Rs 10 crore.
In the resolution passed by its executive committee on July 13, the DHCBA said that the proposed enhancement would substantially impact the justice delivery system as well as the practice, livelihood and professional interest of a large number of its members because it would reduce the cases in the high court by nearly 70 per cent.
On July 10, the high court's division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Tejas Karia had dismissed a plea by DHCBA seeking a stay on the presentation of the "Pecuniary Jurisdiction Report" before the full court following the coordination committee's representation on the issue.
According to the DHCBA, the high court could not have acted on the representation, as the power to enhance the pecuniary jurisdiction was with Parliament since it involved amending the Delhi High Court Act.
