1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants in all these cases and Mr. Sukumar Sinha, Senior Advocate who has appeared in these matters amicus curiae on Courts request.

2. On an earlier date on submission of Mr. Sukumar Sinha an order was passed in F. A. No. 149 of 2003 for listing the matter alongwith records of F.A. No. 182 of 2002 (Devendra Prasad Singh vs. Ram Chandra Prasad Singh and Ors.). The records of that case show that in view of similar defect the Court had asked the Stamp Reporter to make a fresh Stamp Report on certain issues including an issue as to whether the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Court (Bihar Amended) Act, 1995 (Bihar Act 19 of 1996) (hereinafter referred as the Amendment Act) shown to have been published in the Bihar Gazette (Extraordinary) on 1.10.1996 would be effective and enforceable from 1.10.1996 or with effect from 16.2.2005, a date on which as per Stamp Reporter the Hon ble Chief Justice had approved the Amendment Act. The Registrar General was also directed to submit his comments in the matter.

3. On behalf of appellants Mr. Sukumar Sinha submitted that the comments of the Registrar General and annexures therewith show the correct factual position. They disclose that although the Gazette notification whereby the Amendment Act (Bihar Act 19 of 1996) has been published bears the date 1.10.1996 as the date of Publication, contrary to established practice and the directive of the Law Department, Government of Bihar, copies of the Bihar Gazette became available with the Law Department only on 4.8.2004 (as per letter of the Law Secretary dated 26.4.2005). Thereafter on the asking of this Court copy of the Gazette notification appears to have been made available to the Registry of this Court soon thereafter. The report of the Registrar General does not mention the date of receipt of the Gazette notification. He should have mentioned that date clearly. Apparently, the official Gazette was received in this Court some time in September, 2004. After losing some valuable time without any good reason, the Registry brought the matter to the notice of the Hon ble Acting Chief Justice for concurrence/approval under an impression that it is required "because of usual procedure and precedence". The concurrence/approval by the Hon ble Acting Chief Justice, as per report of the Registrar General was granted on 16.2.2005 and on receipt of the file the Registry of the Court communicated the whole matter to the Stamp Reporter on 19.2.2005. Thereafter the Stamp Reporter has made the reports and pointed out defects in these appeals that since the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Judge to hear such appeals has been raised from under Rs. 60,000/- to under Rs. 2 Lakhs by the Amendment Act, hence (as per notes of the Registrar General) concerned appeals which have been filed in this Court after 16.2.2005 should be subjected to provisions of the Amendment Act and returned to the concerned appellants/their counsel for being presented in the proper forum i.e. before the concerned District Judge. Such clear stand with due reference to the date 16.2.2005 has been taken in the notes of Registrar General dated 25.5.2005 available in the records of F.A. No. 182/2002. A Copy of that alongwith annexures should be placed in the records of this case also.

4. The simple issue arising for determination in the light of defect regarding maintainability of these appeals in this Court on account of enhanced pecuniary jurisdiction of District Judges to hear such appeals is whether the Amendment Act would be effective from 1.10.1996, the date of publication mentioned in the Gazette notification or from 16.2.2005, the date when the Registry of this Court obtained concurrence/approval of Hon ble the Chief Justice. So far as the effect of the Amendment Act is concerned there is no dispute that the amendment relates to law of procedure and since the date of its coming into force the forum of appeal in all suits having valuation of