'ANNUAL REPORT OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE BOMBAY PRESIDENCY, FOR THE YEAR 1862-63’ [‎55v] (106/266)

appendix to judicial report.
Remembrancer in reply stated that such a transfer was not contemplated by Act XXVI.
of 1850. On a further reference being made to him, the Legal Remembrancer stated as
follows :—
“ In Act XXVI. of 1850 there does not appear to me to be anything to prevent
Government from conducting its correspondence on Municipal matters through the
Revenue Commissioners, or from obtaining the opinions of those Officers on the
Municipal Rules framed under Section VII. of that Act, or on the general working
of the Act itself; but beyond this, the Revenue Commissioners would not be
authorised to intervene, as consistently with the Act they could not exercise any
mandatory powers. Every order, either with respect to the approval of Rules
under Section VI. of the Act, or for the appointment of Commissioners under that
Section, and every other order which Government may have power to make under
the Act, must be made by Government, although such order may be suggested by
or communicated through the Revenue Commissioners. ,,
Copy of the correspondence on the subject was sent to the Government of India, with
a suggestion that Act XXVI. of 1850 be amended so as to permit Government to
appoint Commissioners with mandatory powers for the regulation and control of
Municipal arrangements in the Mofussil.
No measure was introduced into the Council of the Governor General in conse
quence of the above reference.
The above Bill was accordingdy introduced into this Council, and passed as Act
IX. of 1862.
(7) A Bill to Extend the Jurisdiction of the Bombay Court of Small Causes, and
to provide jor the appointment of Additional Judges of that Court.
The propriety and expediency of extending the jurisdiction of the Court of Small
Causes in Bombay, which, under Act IX. of 1850, is now limited to suits of the value
of Rupees Indian silver coin also widely used in the Persian Gulf. 500, have been felt by the public and urged on the Government. It has been
forcibly represented that^mnecessary delay, inconvenience, and heavy loss are entailed on
suitors by their being compelled to forego the advantages and facilities of the Small
Cause Court when their demands exceed Rs. 500, and that the want of a tribunal of in
creased jurisdiction, and one in which justice is administered in the summary and expe
ditious manner prescribed by the Small Cause Court rules, operates as a prohibition or
denial of justice to suitors in cases that are simple in their character, but in which the
claim exceeds Rs. 500. As an evidence of the public preference of the Small Cause
Court, it has been shown that plaintiffs have abandoned claims in excess of Rs. 500 for
the purpose of bringing their cases within the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court,
ibis has been done to avoid the expense attendant on a trial in the Supreme Court, and
to obtain a speeay decision. Such a course has, however, been decided to be illegal.
The Judges of tne Supreme Court were in favour of increased powers being conferred
on,the Judges of the Small Cause Court, and suggested that their jurisdiction should be
extended to cases where the matter in dispute did not exceed Rs. 1000, but that cases
above Rs. 500 should be heard before a Barrister Judge, and that appeals to the Supreme
Court should, under certain conditions, be allowed in such cases. They also proposed
that when the amount in dispute exceeded Rs. 1000, parties might by consent have the
case determined in the Small Cause Court.
6