Back
2020 Supreme(Guj) 959
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
G.R.Udhwani, V.P. Patel, JJ.
Khurshid Cyrus Medhora – Petitioner
Versus
Cyrus Ratanshaw Medhora and others – Respondents
R/First Appeal No. 5 of 2013
Decided On : 29-05-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr Dhaval D Vyas
For the Respondent:Mr Jal Soli Unwala Senior Advocate With Ms Tejal Avashi
Point of Law: Section 30(3) of the Act, 2005 will prevail over the other provisions of the Act, 2005. Therefore, there will be no effect, if any provision similar to Section 14(A) of the Act, 2005 is made or not
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 225, 133 and 135 - Gujarat Civil Courts Act, 2005 - Sections 14, 30(3) , 14 , 2(a), 1(3), 14A and 15(2)(a) - Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869 - Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 - Section 7 - Pecuniary jurisdiction should be transferred to District Court - Enhancing the pecuniary jurisdiction of Courts - Learned Single Judge an issue of transfer of appeal pending in the High Court came to be raised principally relying upon section 30 of Gujarat Civil Courts Act, 2005 - Maintaining appeal in the unamended pecuniary jurisdiction. Case persuaded the learned Single Judge hearing to hold that the pending appeal in the High Court in its unamended pecuniary jurisdiction should be transferred to District Court - First Appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved with judgment and order rendered in Special Civil Suit No. 3/96 by the Civil Judge –
Finding of the Court:
Court has to consider mainly two factors amongst other factors (1) object of Act and (2) the effect of the interpretation by the judgment of the Court on the society - Object of the amended notification is to secure the justice at door means the litigant may have right to access of justice at the nearest Court i.e. Taluka Court or District Court - Provision is amended because of prosperity development in the Gujarat where, the price of properties are increased and depreciation of value of Rupees. If the appeals pending in the High Court are transfer to District Court, naturally the litigant will be benefited by two fold - He can get justice at the door by saving time and at lesser expense - Court after the appeal is disposed by District Court - If interpretation as regards to the notification under consideration is made retrospectively the litigants will be benefited - Constitution Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court - Andra Pradesh High Court has carved out general principles of interpretation of statute retrospectively or prospectively - we hereby hold, that even for such matters where trial had commenced under the unamended provision, after amendments, which we have held to be operational retrospectively - I am of the view that the notification under consideration required to be treated as retrospectively Appeals pending before the High Court by virtue of such notification shall be treated as stand transferred to the concerned District Court for disposal in accordance –
Result: Ordered Accordingly
JUDGMENT :
G.R.UDHWANI, J.
1. The question in this reference relates to Notification no. C.0202/92 dated 14.10.2014. By the said notification, inter alia, pecuniary appellate jurisdiction of the High Court and District Court has been revised upwards. On the effective date of the notification (supra) several appeals were pending consideration in the unamended pecuniary appellate jurisdiction; one of such appeal was Gopalsinh Natvarsinh Vasadiya & 4 vs. P.S.I &7- First Appeal No. 835 of 2014. When it came up for consideration before bench of learned Single Judge an issue of transfer of appeal pending in the High Court came to be raised principally relying upon section 30 of the Gujarat Civil Courts Act, 2005 as also Amitbhai Hirabhai Vadodariya vs. Pinalben Prafulbhai Mehta - (2014) 2 GLR 1541, Kiritbhai Melabhai Tadvi vs. Narmada Shankar Premjibhai Dave- 2008(1) GLR 75. On the other hand reliance was placed upon Khurshid Cyrus Medhora vs. Cyrus Ratanshaw Medhora- First Appeal No. 5 of 2013 for maintaining the appeal in the unamended pecuniary jurisdiction. Case of Amitbhai Hirabhai Vadodariya as also Rameshchandra (both supra) persuaded the learned Single Judge hearing Gopalsinh Natvarsinh Vasadiya (supra) to hold that the pending appeal in the High Court in its unamended pecuniary jurisdiction should be transferred to the District Court. Subsequently the case of Khurshid Cyrus Medhora vs. Cyrus Ratanshaw Medhora- First Appeal No. 5 of 2013 came to be listed with the same learned Single Judge on 19.01.2017 wherein following order has been passed; as which has entailed into this reference under consideration:
“The present First Appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved with the judgment and order rendered in Special Civil Suit No. 3/96 by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Navsari dated 31.8.2012. However, when the matter is called out, learned advocate Shri Dhaval Vyas as well as learned advocate Shri Unwala has drawn the attention with regard to the maintainability of the appeal before this court in light of the amendment in Gujarat Civil Courts Act, 2005 with effect from 9.5.2005.
Learned advocate Shri Unwala referred to the order of the coordinate Bench (Coram: Paresh Upadhyay, J.) dated 17.6.2015 in this very mater by which the view has been taken that the present appeal would not stand transferred or is not liable to be transferred and sent back to the District Court. However, this court has on examination of the issue in another case being First Appeal No. 835 of 2014 with Civil Application No. 3242 of 2014, referring to the provisions of sec. 30(3) of the Gujarat Civil Courts Act, 2005 r/w Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 has taken a different view. Moreover, another co-ordinate Bench in 2014 has taken a different view than the view taken by Justice Upadhyay. There is another judgment in First Appeal No. 983 of 2005 by Justice A.L. Dave (as he then was).
In these circumstances it is desirable that this matter may be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders.”
1.1 As is evident from the order (supra) in Gopalsinh, the order by another learned Single Judge in Khurshid Cyrus(supra) preceded Gopalsinh already expressing the view thus:
“10. For the reasons recorded above, it is held that :-
10.1 The Appeals, which were pending before this Court at the time of issuance of the Notification by the High Court of Gujarat dated 14.10.2014, enhancing the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Courts below with effect from 01.11.2014, can not be transferred to the concerned District Court on the ground that, now it is the concerned District Court which would be competent to consider such Appeals, in view of the enhanced pecuniary jurisdiction. Those Appeals therefore need to be considered by this Court.
10.2 If the date of the judgment/decree appealed against is prior to the effective date of the said Notification i.e. upto 31.10.2014, such appeals need to be considered by the High Court only, if it was otherwise required to be f
