Ramachandran Nair, J.

1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 10.4.2013 in O.S. No.748/2009 of the Sub Court, Irinjalakuda. There was a counter claim filed by the defendants which was also dismissed by the impugned judgment. The Registry has raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal before this Court by pointing out that, the valuation of the suit is below Rs.2 Lakhs. The same has been contested by the learned counsel for the appellants by stating that the jurisdiction valuation will have to be taken as per the valuation in the suit as well as that of the counter claim. Accordingly, the matter was placed before the Bench for consideration as requested by the learned counsel for the appellants.

2. We heard learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Dinesh R. Shenoy and learned counsel for the respondents, Shri K.V. Sadananda Prabhu.

3. Shri Dinesh R. Shenoy, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in A.Z. Mohammed Farooq v. State Government (1984 KLT 346 -FB) to contend that the Full Bench has taken the view therein while interpreting Section 13 of the Kerala Civil Courts Act, 1957 and the meaning of the term "subject mater" that "having regard to the provisions in 0.8 of C.P.C., it is possible to hold that the 'subject-matter' of the suit would be the aggregate of the amounts claimed in the plaint and in the written statement by way of counter-claim. Issues are very much interlocked and the subject-matter of the suit itself becomes rolled up and inflated as the aggregate of the claims put forward in the suit and in the counter-claim."

4. Shri K.V. Sadananda Prabhu, learned counsel for the respondents then submitted that in the light of the recent amendment to Section 13 of the Civil Courts Act raising the appellate jurisdiction of the District Court to Rs.20 Lakhs, the appeal, in any way, has to be filed only before the District Court concerned and not before the High Court. Both the learned counsel argued elaborately on the scope of the amendment and the applicability of the same to the appeal herein.

5. Section 13 of the Kerala Civil Courts Act, 1957 provides for the appellate jurisdiction of the District Court and subordinate courts. An amendment for the first time raising the limit to Rs.10,000/- was made by Act 12/1959 in Section 13(1) with effect from 26.3.1959. By Amendment Act 1984 with effect from 6.1.1984 it was raised to Rs.25,000/-. By the later amendment by Act 6/1996 it was raised to Rs.2 lakhs. The recent amendment is by Act 26/2013 with effect from 6.5.2013 and the limit has been raised to Rs.20 Lakhs. This appeal is filed on 9.10.2013 against the judgment and decree dated 10.4.2013.

6. Shri Dinesh R. Shenoy, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the light of the consistent view taken by this Court in Clara v. Augustine (1984 KLT 377), Knnappadi Kalliani v. Lekharaj (1996 (2) KLT 106) and in Sasi @ Sasikumar & others v. Soudamini and others (2003 (2) KLJ 888) that the amendments are not retrospective in operation, the Amendment Act 26/2013 will not govern the appeal herein.

7. The above argument is contested by Shri K.V. Sadananda Prabhu by submitting that the dictum laid down in the above cases requires a reconsideration. According to the learned counsel, no litigant has got a vested right with regard to a particular forum of appeal and this aspect has not been considered by the various Division Bench decisions noted above. Learned counsel submitted that, in a case of this nature, the right of appeal is not affected or taken away by the amendment and therefore there is no question of any vested right being affected by the amendment. The real question is whether a party has got a right of appeal to a particular forum. The right of appeal is well preserved and is untouched by the amendment. What is involved is only raising of a pecuniary limit by which the District Court concerned will be the foru