Satyeshwar Roy, J.

The respondent filed a suit valued at Rs. 17,600/- in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Dhanbad on 6-4-1987. The suit was decreed in his favour. The appellant, who was defendant in that suit, filed Title Appeal No. 24 of 1991 on 17.5.1991 in the court of the District Judge, Dhanbad against the judgment and decree of the trial. Court. The appeal was valued at Rs. 17,600/-. The appeal was listed before the District Judge on 28.6.1991 to dispose of the objection filed by the respondent about the maintainability of the appeal before that Court. The learned District Judge noticed that pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Judge to entertain appeal was raised from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs.50,000/- from May, 1987 and held that as the suit has been filed on 6.4.1987 i.e. prior to the raising of the pecuniary jurisdiction, the appeal did not lie before the District Judge. He relied on Kartik Nath Jha Vs. Smt Sheela Thakur : 1988 BBCJ 767 : He ordered for returning the memorandum of appeal. After receipt of the memorandum of appeal, the appellant has filed this appeal in this Court.

2. On 11.7.1991 the appeal was listed under the heading "For Orders". The appeal was ordered to be listed before a Division Bench on 12.7.1991 to hear on the question of maintainability of the appeal. On 12.7.1991, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties were heard on this point.

3. The question involved in this appeal is : in view of the fact that pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Judge has been raised from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- in May, 1987, whether the appeal lay before the District Judge or before this Court.

4. All the relevant facts for disposing of the question have been noticed above. It is necessary to notice Kartik Nath Jha (supra) which has been relied upon by the learned District Judge.

5. From the judgment of Karlik Nath Jha (supra) it appears that the suit was filed in 1985 and that was decreed ex-parte. The defendant filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex-parte decree. That was rejected Against that, miscellaneous appeal was filed in this Court. The value of the suit as well as the value of the appeal was Rs. 13,000/-. When the appeal was filed in the High Court, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Judge was Rs. 50,000/-. The question arose : whether the appeal was maintainable in the High Court. The learned Single Judge held that as the suit which was valued at Rs. 13,100/- when the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Judge was not exceeding Rs. 10,000/-, the appeal was maintainable in the High Court, notwithstanding the fact that when the appeal was filed in this Court, pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Judge was Rs. 50,000/-.

6. Different classes of Courts have been constituted under the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 (the Act). Section 18 of the Act, provided the extent of original jurisdiction of the District or Subordinate Judge. Section 19 prescribes the extent of jurisdiction of Munsif. Section 21 of the Act, provides the forum of appeal from a decree or order of a Subordinate Judge which shall lie either to the District Judge or to the High Court, according to the valuation of the suit. The pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Judge to entertain appeals from a decree or order of a Subordinate Judge has been raised from time to time. Prior to May, 1987, the District Judge has jurisdiction to entertain appeals not exceeding Rs. 10,000/-. By Bengal Agra and Assam Civil Courts (Bihar Amendment ordinance, 1987 (Ordinance), which subsequently became Act, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Judge was raised to Rs, 50,000/-. It is not in dispute that the provision made in the Ordinance came into force with effect from 26.5.1987.

7. In Kartik Nath Jha (supra) the learned Single Judge referred Messers. Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. vrs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others: A.I.R. 1953 Supreme Court 22