The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right of appeal becomes vested only after the framing of a substantial question of law, and the pecuniary valuation of appeals can impact their maintainability.

Bhagwati Prasad, J.-Heard.

2. These appeals are filed against the orders of the courts below, wherein, the valuation of the suit was less than Rs. 25,000/-. The valuation being less than Rs. 25,000/-, today when these appeals are being considered as second appeals, the question arises as to whether such appeals can be entertained or not.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in these two appeals has urged that the basic question which requires consideration of this court is the import of Section 6 of General Clauses Act, 1897 (hereinafter referred to as ‘General Clauses 1897).

4. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, as and when the lis starts, the right of appeal, if provided at that time accrues to the litigant as a vested right. In terms of amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure as introduced in 1999 and 2002, there had been no attempt by the Legislature to take away any vested right. Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Amendment of 2002’) saves Section 6 of General Clauses Act in its generality.

5. In the aforesaid background, learned counsel for the appellant submits that as and when an appeal was presented to the High Court, the right which was saved to the appellant by virtue of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, came into operation. The term “admitted” as used in Section 5 of the Amendments of 2002, is a fresh event. Word “admission” is not used very frequently in Civil Procedure Code. The term “admission” was used in Order 41 Rule 19 CPC. It was when the appeal was re-admitted after its rejection in default.

6. Thelearned counsel for the appellants submits that anything which has a connotation of admission, in Rajasthan High Court Rules, would not be relevant for determining the import of term “admission” as occuring in the amendment in Civil Procedure Code made in 2002 & 1999. An appeal having been filed or a right having been there to file an appeal prior to amendments cannot be taken away with reference to the interpretation or understanding of the Rajasthan High Court Rules. Thus, the learned counsel for the appellant urges that having filed an appeal, it should be deemed that the appeal has been admitted and a right which has been understood to have been accrued in terms of Section 6 of General Clauses will save the appeal from being hit from provisions of Section 16(2)(a) of the Amendment of 2002.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant further urged that the term “admission” further occurs before the beginning of Rule 9 of Order 41 CPC. Here, it has been provided as a caption for following orders describing “Procedure on admission of appeals.” It would therefore, mean as to what procedure will be adopted by the court concerned after an appeal is admitted.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the term “admitted/admission” has not been used in Rule 9 or other rules of this part of CPC. What has been described in these rules is a particular procedure for hearing. Rule 11 provides that an appeal is dismissed without issuing notice. Rule 12 of Order 41 provides procedure, when the appeal is not dismissed under Rule 11. A notice is issued and the appeal is set for hearing. In all these provisions, the terms “admission” has not been used. The legislature has not thought it proper to use word “admission” here. It will imply that it had no intention of importing the meaning of the term “admission” as it occures in the Rajasthan High Court Rules. The court will not make an endeavour to interject the term “admission” at this stage, to the provisions of Civil Procedure Code. If such an attempt is made, the saving clause as contained in Section 16 of the Amendment of 2002 would bar an appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that vested rights are not taken away unless there is an express provisions. He places reliance on the following paragraph of a decision in the case of’Ms. Hoosein Kasam Dada vs. The State