ORDER :

1. The present appeal is filed by the appellants/Objectors against the order dated 17.04.2006 made in Execution No.15242/2004 on the file of the learned XXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru city, rejecting the application filed by them under Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.16586/2004.

2. When the present appeal came up before this Court on 19.3.2021, this Court has passed following order:

“The paragraph8 of the Memorandum of Regular First Appeal depicts that the value of the suit schedule property is Rs.14,25,000/as valued by the decree holder in the suit. Therefore, the matter has to go before the appropriate Bench having the pecuniary jurisdiction.

Office to check and proceed.

In view of the above, office to proceed with the amended provisions of Section 5 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 and in accordance with law.”

3. On verification, the office has put up a note, which reads as under:

“In this connection, it is verified and found that, the amendment to provisions of Section 5 of Karnataka High Court Act 1961 was with effect from 27.08.2007. However, the present appeal is filed on 29.05.2006 i.e., prior to the said amendment. Before the amendment, the appeals having value of Rs.3,00,000/and above were posted before Hon’ble Division Bench in view of earlier Section 5(1) of Karnataka High Court Act and since, the value of present appeal is more than Rs.3,00,000/i.e., Rs.14,25,000/, the present appeal has to be heard by Hon’ble Division Bench. (In view of earlier Section 5(1) of Karnataka High Court Act)”

4. Subsequently, this Court by the order dated 01.04.2021 has observed that prima facie, the office is justified in mentioning in the office note that present appeal has to be heard by the Division Bench. However, at the request of learned counsel, the matter was adjourned to decide with regard to maintainability of the present appeal before the Division Bench.

5. Today, the matter has come up before the Court for orders on the office note regarding posting of the appeal before the Division Bench in view of earlier Section 5(i) of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the office note.

7. Sri Shaker Shetty, learned counsel for the appellants contended that in view of the amended provisions of Section 5(i) of the Act, all First Appeals against a decree or order passed in a suit or other proceedings, the value of subject matter which exceeds fifteen lakh rupees shall be heard by a Bench consisting of not less than two Judges of the High Court and other First Appeals shall be heard by a Single Judge of the High Court. Since in the present case, the value of the suit schedule property is Rs.14,25,00,000/for the purpose of jurisdiction, the appeal has to be heard by the learned Single Judge and not by the Division Bench of this Court.

8. Per contra, Sri S.P. Shankar, learned senior counsel for the Respondent No.1 contended that prior to amendment to Section 5(i) of the Act, all First Appeals against a decree or order passed in a suit or other proceedings, the value of subject matter, of which is rupees three lakhs or more, shall be heard by a Division Bench. He would further contend that Section 5(i) of the Act was amended w.e.f. 28.8.2007 by substituting the words “of which is rupees three lakhs or more” by words “which exceeds fifteen lakhs”. Admittedly, the present appeal was filed on 29.5.2006 i.e., prior to the amendment and therefore the Division Bench of this Court has jurisdiction to decide the present appeal and not the learned Single Judge.

9. In support of his contentions, learned senior counsel relied upon the following judgments:

(i) State of Bombay –vs Purushottam Jog Naik reported in AIR 1952 SC 317 {paragraph7}

(ii) Garikapati –vs Subbiah Choudhary reported in AIR 1957 SC 540 {paragraph 23(iv)}

10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to t