( 1 ) THE appellant Ramjibhai Lalbhai Patel Talod Taluka Prantij District Sabarkantha is the husband of the respondent Smt. Shantaben daughter of Manilal Jashkanbhai Patel. The appellant had filed H. M. P. No. 18/79 in the Court of the Civil Judge (S. D.) Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol under Section 13 (1) (i) (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 as amended by Act No. 68 of 1976 to obtain a decree of divorce of his marriage with the respondent on the ground that she had deserted him for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. The perusal of the Rojnama discloses that on 19-9-1980 the record and proceedings were transferred from the Court of the Civil Judge (S. D.) Narol to the Extra Assistant Judge Narol under the orders of the District Judge. The matter was thereafter conducted and decided by the Extra Assistant Judge Narol who by his judgment and order dated 17 dismissed the petition with costs. Hence the appellant has preferred this appeal.

( 2 ) XXX xxx xxx

( 3 ) XXX xxx xxx

( 4 ) XXX xxx xxx

( 5 ) XXX xxx xxx

( 6 ) XXX xxx xxx

( 7 ) XXX xxx xxx

( 8 ) XXX xxx xxx

( 9 ) XXX xxx xxx

( 10 ) WHEN I started delivering the judgment Mr. R. N. Shah interrupted to submit that he wanted to raise a question about the jurisdiction of this court to entertain and hear this appeal. He submitted that in the circumstances of the present case appeal from the judgment of the Extra Assistant Judge Narol will not lie in the High Court but that it would lie in the District Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the decision of the Extra Assistant Judge in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction. Although the issue was raised belatedly I heard both the learned Advocates on the issue as it was a jurisdictional issue.

( 11 ) A similar issue was raised in First Appeal No. 1158 which I decided on 2-4-1984. (now reported in Kamuben v. Lakhabhai 1984 0 GLH 369 ). It was also a matrimonial matter and divorce was sought on the ground of legal cruelty and desertion for a continuous period exceeding two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. It was also a petition which was decided by the Extra Assistant Judge Narol. Mr. G. D. Bhatt Advocate appeared for the respondent in that matter and he raised a preliminary issue about the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain and hear the appeal from the judgment and order of the Extra Assistant Judge. The contention was that an appeal would lie to the District Judge at Narol and not to the High Court. It was also submitted that the appeal before the High Court was not competent. It was submitted in that appeal that in paragraph 17 of the original application it was stated that for the purpose of court fees advocate fees and jurisdiction the valuation was made at Rs. 5/- and a fixed court fees stamp of Rs. 37. 50 was utilised for the purpose of court fees. My attention was invited to Sections 16 24 25 and 26 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act 1869 Section 16 reads as under :16 Original jurisdiction of Assistant Judge. The District Judge may refer to any Assistant Judge subordinate to him original suits of which the subject matter (is of any) amount or value (applications or references under Special Acts) and miscellaneous applications. THE Assistant Judge shall have jurisdiction to try such suits and to dispose of such applications (or references ). WHERE the Assistant Judges decrees and orders in such cases are appealable the appeal shall lie to the District Judge or to the High Court according as the amount or value of the subject matter does not exceed or exteeds twenty thousand rupees.

( 12 ) SECTION 24 of the said Act refers to jurisdiction of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and jurisdiction of Civil Judge (Junior Division ). It is prescribed that the jurisdiction of a Civil Judge (Junior Division) extends to all original suits and proceedings of a civil nature and the jurisdiction of a civil judge (Junior Divisio