( 1 ) THE judicial somersault for a decade in the hands of the Division Benches and the full Bench and the decisional upheavals inherent in the system continue to make the litigant under the perennial predicament and speculation. This is one such instance, we are called upon to clear the riddles.

( 2 ) THE matter is brought before us on a reference made by a learned Single Judge (BPRJ) in regard to the decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court reported in motichand Jain v. Jaikumar M.

( 3 ) THE issue that arises for consideration is (a) whether A. P. Civil Courts amendment) Act, 30 of 1989 is retrospective or prospective in operation? (b) Whether there is any distinction between vested right and right to forum?

( 4 ) THE Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972 was brought into statute book with effect from 1-11-1972. The pecuniary jurisdiction of Courts both original and appellate and as also the forum are being amended from time to time. By AP. Civil courts (Amendment) Act, 30 of 1989 under which pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the appeal inter alia to the District Court/chief judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad was raised from the then existing Rs. 30,000/- to rs. 1 lakh. The amendment became effective from 2-12-1989. It is also to be noted that by a further amendment, the pecuniary limits to entertain the appeal was raised to Rs. 3 lakhs with effect from 1 -11 -2000. We would discuss the details at a little later point.

( 5 ) THE following are the circumstances under which the matter has come to be dealt with at various levels: a plaint came to be filed before the II additional Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad in O. S. No. 28 of 1980 for specific performance of Agreement of Sale and the value of the subject matter of the suit was rs. 45,000/ -. However, the suit was dismissed by the learned Judge on 30-12-1990. By the date of the judgment of the lower Court, Amendment Act 30 of 1989 came into effect with effect from 2-12-1989. Therefore, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the revised forum namely chief Judge, City civil Court, Hyderabad consequent on the amendment. The Office took an objection on the maintainability of the appeal and the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad by an Order dated 26-4-1991 held that he had no jurisdiction and that the plaintiff ought to file an appeal before the high court. Against the said Order, the plaintiff filed C. M. A. No. 1454 of 1991. When the matter reached before the learned Single judge, it was referred to Full Bench on the premise that the dicta laid down by this Court in S. Kameswaramma v. M/s. Radhakrishna and Company and K. Hara Gopal v. K. Venkata Ratna Kumar and subsequent cases following the aforesaid cases required reconsideration.

( 6 ) THE Full Bench considered the matter at length and by an Order dated 24-10-2003 held that right to appeal is a vested right while the right to forum is governed by procedural law and hence the provision creating appellate forum under the Act is retrospective and consequently held that the chief Judge is having jurisdiction to entertain and decide the appeals.

( 7 ) DURING the interregnum, number of appeals were filed before the High court in pursuance of law declared by the Division bench right from Kameswaramma s case. The result is that some of the appeals were disposed of and number of appeals are still pending disposal. The learned Single Judge (BPRJ) while dealing with such appeals expressed the view that the decision of the full Bench has a greater ramifications on very large number of pending by a Larger bench for an authoritative pronouncement. Thus, we are required to deal with the issue now.

( 8 ) BEFORE going into the actual matrix, we find it appropriate to refer to the historical back ground of A. P. Civil Courts Act, 1972 (Act XIX of 1972 ). This is an Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to the Civil Courts subordinate to High Court in the State of Andhra Pradesh. It was enforced with effect fro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document