Modi, J.—The only point for determination before the Full Bench In this appeal is whether it rightly lies to this Court or the appeal should have been filed in the court of the District Judge concerned.

2. We may state a few facts only which have a bearing on the question for decision. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by the plaintiff respondent Madanlal against the defendant appellant Samdukhan in the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Merta, on the 11th February, 1953. The suit was for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts, and the plaintiff respondent had valued it at Rs. 520/- for purposes of court-fee. The trial court passed a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff respondent by its judgment dated the 31st January, 1957. The defendant appellant then filed this appeal against that judgment and decree in this Court on the 13th March, 1957. The appeal was registered in this Court on the same day. The appellant had somehow valued his appeal at Rs. 10,500/- but put in fixed court-fee only. When the matter came for determination of the proper court-fee payable on the appeal in this Court before a Division Bench, the appellant was directed to pay an ad valorem court-fee on Rs. 5250/-. and time was granted to him to make good the deficiency by the 31st May, 1957, and the Bench directed that the question of jurisdiction would stand over until the deficiency in the court-fee was made good. There was a few days delay in the payment of the court-fee but this was condoned by the Bench in the circumstances of the case. As regards the decision of the question whether the appeal lies to this Court or not, the appeal has been referred to the Full Bench in view of the importance of the question.

3. The question of the venue of the appeal depends upon sec. 21 of the Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance (No. VII) of 1950. This section at the time the present suit was filed in 1953 stood as follows—

21. Appeals from Civil Judges and Munsif—

(1) Save as aforesaid an appeal from a decree or order of a Civil Judge shall lie—

(a) to the District Judge where the value of the original suit in which or in any proceeding arising out of which, the decree or order was made did not exceed Rs. 5000/-;

(b) to the High Court in any other case.........

Then came the Rajasthan Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 1956 (No. VI of 1956) by which it has been enacted that the figure of Rs. 10,000/- be substituted for Rs. 5,000/- in clause (a) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 21 as set out above. It is contended on the strength of this amendment, on behalf of the plaintiff respondent that as the present appeal has been filed in March, 1957, after the Amendment Act of 1956 had come into force on the 11th April, 56, the proper forum tor the filing of this appeal was the court of the District Judge and not this Court.

4. If the matter had merely stood at this, the question as to the proper forum of the present appeal would have presented far greater complexities than to our minds it presents at this date.

5. A Division Bench of this Court to which two of us were parties had an occasion to consider the effect of the amendment Act No. VI of 1956 in Civil Regular First Appeals Nos. 55 and 56 of 1956) Doongarmal vs. Roopsingh and Kishennath vs. Grodhannath decided on the 30th April, 1957 RLW, 468). There the judgments under appeal had been made in January, 1956, before the amendment Act had come into force on the 11th April, 1956. It was held by the Bench that the appeals in those cases lay to the High Court inasmuch as the right of appeal in those cases had certainly come into play before the commencement of Amendment Act, and that any other view would amount to giving a retrospective effect to that Act, and such effect could not rightly be given in the absence of an express provision or necessary intendment to that the effect. The question as to what would be the correct legal position as to the forum of appeals in suits which had been filed before but which

Click Here to Read the rest of this document