Judgment M.Y. Eqbal, C.J. 1. In both the Writ Petitions, Petitioner prayers for a declaration that the Amending Act 19 of 2010 as published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary bearing No.154 dated 27.05.2010 so far as it pertains to the amendment in Sections 1(1) and (2), 3 and 4(2) of the Amending Act, as also Section 3-A of the Chennai City Civil Courts Act, 1892, as void and ultra vires the State Legislature and to strike down as unconstitutional. 2. Petitioner’s case is that Section 3-A was inserted by Section 2 of the Madras City civil Court (Amendment) Act, 1934. The pecuniary jurisdiction of the Coty Civil Court was initially Rs.5,000/-which was time to time enhanced arbitrarily. The said Madras City Civil Court Act, 1892 was substituted as Chennai City Civil Court Act, 1892 and presently by virtue of Section 3-A of the Act the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court is enhanced to Rs.10 lakhs. By the present Act 19 of 2010 further amendments have been made to the Tamil Nadu City Civil Court Act, 1873 and the Chennai City Civil Court Act, 1892. The aforesaid amended Act received the assent of the Governor on 25.05.2010 and was published in the Government Gazette on 27.05.2010. The Petitioner challenges the vires of Section 3-A of the Act though it is a pre-constitutional enactment. 3. Petitioner’s further case is that insertion of Section 2(c) in Section 15 of the Act is arbitrary and irrational. According to the Petitioner by coming into force of Section 3-A of the Act, it has been presumed that the original jurisdiction of the High Court has been excluded, and consequentially, from time to time the State Government has been enhancing the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court without any rhyme or reason. It is contended that the exclusion of Original Side jurisdiction of the High Court has been vested in the Original Side of the High Court. It is also the case of the Petitioner that the City Civil Court at Chennai is a creature for statute and has been constituted by Notification issued by the State Government. Section 3 is a piece of Central Enactment legislated by the Governor General Council. There is no delegation of power in Section 3 to the Provincial Government to enhance the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court from time to time. Section 3 is a piece of Central Enactment legislated by the Governor General Council. There is no delegation of power in Section 3 to the Provincial Government to enhance the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court from time to time. The insertion of Section 3-A of the Act by the Provincial Legislature or by the State Government will amount to the usurpation of power of the Central Legislature. Petitioner’s further contention is that the amendment made by the Act 19 of 2010 is liable to be struck down for want of legislative competence by the State Legislature. The State Government without any delegation of power cannot unilaterally make amendments to the Central Act, 1892. 4. Beforeanswering to the points raised by the Petitioner, we first refer to some of the relevant provisions of Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act, 1873 and Chennai City Civil Court Act, 1892. .5. The Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act, 1873 was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to the Civil Courts of the State of Tami Nadu. By Section 3 of the Act the number of District Courts were established and the State Government was empowered to alter the sittings of the District Courts. By Section 3-A, which was inserted by the Madras Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 1934, the State Government was empowered to appoint one or more Additional District Judges to that Court. By Section 4-A the Courts of Subordinate Judges and District Munsifs were also established. By Sections 10 and 11 the local limits of jurisdiction of District Court or Subordinate Courts or District Munsif Courts have been fixed. By Section 12 of the Act, the jurisdiction of the District Judge or Subordinate Judge has been limited to the extent prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure. .6. In the year 1892, for the purpose of establishing Additional Civil Courts for the City of Chennai, the Chennai City Civil Court Act, 1892 was enacted. By Section 3 of the Act the State Government was empowered to establish Court called the Chennai City Civil Court by issuing Notification in the Official Gazette conferring jurisdiction to receive, try and dispose of all Suits and other proceedings of a Civil nature not exceeding two thousand five hundred rupees in value and arising within the City of Chennai, except Suits or proceedings which are cognizable by the High Court as a Court of Admiralty. Section 3-A of the Act conferred power to the State Government to enhance the jurisdiction of the City Court. For better appreciation, Section 3-A of the Act is reproduced hereunder: .“3-A. Power of State Government to enhance the jurisdiction of the City Court.- Subject to the exception specified in Section 3, the State Government may, by Notification in the Official Gazette, invest the City Court with jurisdiction to receive, try and dispose of all Suits and other proceedings of a Civil nature arising within the City of Chennai and of such value not exceeding ten lakhs of rupees as may be specified in the Notification.” 7. Section 4 prescribes the power of Judges of the City Court and Section 5 provides that a Jude of a Civil Court shall also be a Judge of the Small Cause Court with respect to the cases cognizable by that Court. 8. The Tamil Nadu Civil Courts and the Chennai City Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 2010 (Act 19 of 2010) was passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and received the assent of the Governor. The amended Act reads as under: “Act No.19 OF 2010 An Act further to amend the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act, 1873 and the Chennai City Civil Court Act, 1892. Be it enacted by the Legislative Assembly of the State of Tamil Nadu in the Sixty-first Year of the Republic of India as follows: 1. (1) This Act may be called the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts sand the Chennai City Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 2010. (2) It shall come into force at once. 2. In Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act, 1873, in the first paragraph, for the expression “five lakh rupees”, occurring in two places, the expression “ten lakh rupees” shall be substituted. 3. (2) It shall come into force at once. 2. In Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act, 1873, in the first paragraph, for the expression “five lakh rupees”, occurring in two places, the expression “ten lakh rupees” shall be substituted. 3. In the Chennai City Civil Courts Act, 1892- .(1) in Section 4, in sub-section (2) – .(a) for the expression “five lakh rupees” occurring in two place, the expression “ten lakh rupees” shall be substituted; .(b) for theexpression “ten lakh rupees”, the expression “twenty-five lakh rupees” shall be substituted; .(2) in Section 15, the existing sub-section (2-C) shall be renumbered as sub-section (2-D), and before sub-section (2-D) as so renumbered, the following sub-section shall be inserted, namely - “(2-C) All Appeals pending in the High Court of which the amount or value of the subject matter of such Appeals exceeds three lakh of rupees but does not exceed five lakh of rupees shall stand transferred to the Chennai City Civil Court.” 4.(1) All Suits pending in a District Court on the date commencement of this Act and which would be within the cognizance of the Subordinate Court under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act 1873 (Central Act III of 1873), as amended by this Act, shall stand transferred to the Subordinate Court having jurisdiction over the subject matter. (2) All Suits pending before an Additional Judge or a Principal Judge or in the High Court on the date of the commencement of this Act and which would be within the cognizance of the Chennai City Civil Court under the provisions of the Chennai City Civil Court Act, 1892 (Central Act VII of 1892), as amended by this Act, shall stand transferred to the Assistant Judge, Additional Judge or the Principal judge, having jurisdiction over the subject matter. (By order of the Governor)” 9. The main contention of the Petitioner is that though the Tamil Nadu City Civil Courts Act, and the Chennai City Civil Courts Act are the Central enactments, there is no delegation of power in Section 3 to the Provincial Government to enhance the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court from time to time. According to the learned Counsel, the insertion of Section 3-A of the Act by the Petitioner cannot be accepted. Section 3-A was inserted by the Madras City Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 1934. According to the learned Counsel, the insertion of Section 3-A of the Act by the Petitioner cannot be accepted. Section 3-A was inserted by the Madras City Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 1934. Section 3-A of the City Civil Court, 1892 is a pre-constitutional legislation empowering the State Government to invest the City Court with jurisdiction to receive, try and dispose of all suits and other proceedings of a Civil nature and the pecuniary jurisdiction may be enhanced as and when it requires. Section 16 of the Chennai City Civil Court Act, 1892 saves the Original Civil jurisdiction of the High Court. For better appreciation, Section 16 is quoted herein below: “Saving of Original Civil jurisdiction of High Court – Nothing in this Act contained shall affect the Original Civil jurisdiction of the High Court: Provided that - .(1) if any Suit or other proceedings is instituted in the High Court which in the opinion of the fudge who tries the same (whose opinion shall be find) ought to have been instituted in the City Court, no costs shall be allowed to a successful Plaintiff and a successful defendant shall be allowed the costs (at the maximum admissible under the Madras High Court Fees Rules for Suits sets down for final disposal); .(2) in any Suit or other proceedings pending at any time in the High Court any Judge of such Court may at any stage thereof make an order transferring the same to the City Court if in his opinion such Suit or proceedings is within the jurisdiction of that Court and should be tried therein; .(3) in any Suit or other proceedings so transferred, the Court-fee Act, 1870 (Central Act VII of 1870) shall apply, credit being given for any fees levied in the High Court. 10. It is incorrect to say that by the impugned Amendment Act, the jurisdiction and power of the High Court shall in any way be affected and there is no question of usurpation of power of the Central Legislature by inserting Section 3-A in the Act. In any event, as stated above, this legislation has been made in the pre-constitutional period and it is a tested enactment. At this stage, therefore, it cannot be allowed to say that Section 3-A is liable to be struck down. 11. In any event, as stated above, this legislation has been made in the pre-constitutional period and it is a tested enactment. At this stage, therefore, it cannot be allowed to say that Section 3-A is liable to be struck down. 11. The decision relied upon by the Petitioner, especially P.S. Sathappan v. Andhra Bank Ltd., 2004 (5) CTC 209 (SC); Iridium Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola Inc., 2005 (1) CTC 304 (SC) : 2005 (2) SCC 145 ; and Central Bank of India v. Joseph, 1997 (2) CTC 1 shall have no application for deciding the question involved in these Writ Petitions. 12. After giving our anxious consideration in the matter and after going through the entire legislation, we do not find the impugned Amendment Act either to be ultra vires the Constitution or against the legislative competence of the State Legislature. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed.