A right of appeal to a particular forum is a substantive right and is not lost by alteration in the law unless provision is made expressly in that behalf, or a necessary implication arises.

CHENNAKESAV REDDY, J.

( 1 ) IN this reference made by the District Judge, Visakapatnam under Section 113 C. P. C. the issue that requires resolution is whether the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act. 1972 (Act 19 of 1972) are only prospective or retrospective in operation.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to the reference are these: Aggrieved against the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 226 of 1971 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge. Visakhapatnam the plaintiffs preferred an appeal to the District Court Visakapatnam. The appeal was valued at Rs. 12,795. 00. The suit itself was instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge. Visakhapatnam on 4-11-1971. The value of the suit was Rs. 12,000. 00. After the institution of the suit, the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act. 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was passed and the said Act came into force on 1-11-1972. The suit was disposed of by the learned Subordinate Judge after the Act came into force on 30/06/1973. Under Section 17 (1) of the Act an appeal lies only to the District Court against the decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge when the amount or value of the subject matter of the suit or proceedings is not more than Rs. 15,000. 00. Since the value of the suit was below Rs. 15,000. 00the plaintiffs preferred an appeal to the District Court. The office took an objection that the District Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. On behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants it was argued that as the suit was disposed of after the new Act came into force the appeal was maintainable.

( 3 ) IN view of the conflicting decisions of this High Court in I. Venkata Reddy v. J. Ayodhyamma, 1973-2 APLJ 250. and in V. Venkavamma v. P. Rama-lakshmi. (1973) 1 APLJ (Short Notesl 97 on the one hand, and in Kotina Papavva v. Samminga Appala Naidu. (1960) I An WR 100 on the other on the question whether the operation of the Act is retro-spective or prospective find as an appeal lay to the High Court prior to the present Act under Section 13 of the Madras Civil Courts Act. 1873 (Central Act III of 1873) if the value of the appeal was above Rs. 10,000. 00. the learned District Judge made this reference under Section 113 C. P. C.

( 4 ) THE law regarding such type of Questions as the present one whether the benefit conferred under a statutory provision was prospective or retrospective is plenty. Courts have Invariably leaned very strongly against applying a new Act to a pending action when the express language of the Act itself does not compel to do so. In the Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd. v. living, 1905 AC 369 Lord Macnaghten in delivering the judgment of the Judicial Committee, observed as follows :--"to deprive a suitor in a spending action of an appeal to a superior tribunal which belonged to him as of right is a very different thing from regulating procedure. In principle, their Lordships see no difference between abolishing an appeal altogether and transferring the appeal to a new tribunal. In either case there is an interference with existing rights contrary to the well-known general principle that statutes are not to be held to act retrospectively unless a clear intention to that effect is manifested. "the rule in the above case was accepted and applied by the Supreme Court in Garikapati Veerayya v. Subbaiah Choudury. AIR 1957 SC 540. After an exhaustive review of the earlier authorities. S. R. Das C. J. deduced the following five propositions:--" (I) The legal pursuit of a remedy, suit, appeal and second appeal are really but steps in a series of proceedings all connected by an intrinsic unity and are to be regarded as one legal proceedings: (ii) the right of appeal is not a mere matter of procedure but is a substantive right: (iii) the Institution of the suit carries with it the implication that all rights of appeal then in force ere preserved to the parties thereto till the rest of the career of the suit; (iv) the right of appeal is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document