Modi, J—These two first appeals raise a common question as to their proper venue or forum. In the event that these appeals should have been filed in the court of the District Judge concerned, instead of in the High Court, a question of limitation is further involved because in that case the appeals were presented more than thirty days after the judgment of the trial court was delivered. We propose to decide both these points by this judgment.

2. In order to appreciate the points which are raised before us, a few facts may be stated shortly.

3. As to Appeal No., 55, the plaintiffs respondents filed their suit against the defendant appellant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 9221/- on the 29th May, 1930. The Senior Civil Judge, Jalore decreed the suit by his judgment dated the 25th January. 1956. The defendant filed his present appeal in his Court on the 15th May, 1956 which came to be registered as Appeal No. 55 of 1956.

4. As to Appeal No 56 of 1956, the plaintiff appellant filed his suit some time in 1946 for the reliefs of declaration and possession in respect of certain mayable and immovable property (which was valued at Rs. 9500/-). The Senior Civil Judge, Merta. dismissed the suit by his judgment dated the 3lst January, 1956. The plaintiff then filed his appeal in this Court on the 5th May, 1956, and this appeal stands registered as No. 56 of l956.

5. On these appeals having been presented in this Court, an objection was raised by the office that these appeals should have been instituted in the court of the District Judge concerned inasmuch as sec. 21 of the Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance (No. VII) of 1950 had been amended in the meantime and by virtue of this amendment, first appeals from decrees from the decisions of Civil Judges in suits of a valuation not exceeding Rs. 10,000/- had been made to lie to the District Judge. Notices were subsequently ordered to issue to the respondents on the preliminary points of forum and limitation, and this is how these appeals have been placed before us for hearing on these points only.

6. Now, the material portion of sec. 21 of the Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance (No.VII) of 1950. before the amendment of 1956, stood as follows—

Section 21. Appeals from Civil Judges and Munsiffs—

(1) Save as aforesaid, an appeal from a decree or an 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 five thousand rupees, and

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

7. By the Amendment Act (No. VI) of 1956, it has been enacted that the figure of Rs. 10,000/- be substituted for Rs. 5000/- in clause (a) of sub-section 1 of sec. 21 as set out above. Besides, a new sub-section was also added which is in the following terms : —

"(5) The High Court may transfer to the District Judge any appeals pending before it under this section where the value of the original suit in which, or of any proceeding arising out of which, the decree or order was made, did not exceed ten thousand rupees".

It is contended before us by the respondents that as the present appeals were filed some time in May, 1956, after the aforesaid amendment bad come into force these should have been instituted in the court of the District Judge and not in this Court, and therefore, we should order their return for presentation to the proper court and it should be left to that court to deal with the question of limitation. On the other hand, it is equally strenuously contended on behalf of the appellants that the amendment of 1956 with which we are concerned and which came into force on the 11th April. 1956, is immaterial so far as these appeals go. and that the amendment in question cannot receive a retrospective operation, that a right of appeal is determined not merely or even properly by the state of the law, at the time the appeal is actually brought but the right is a vested one and that oven the forum of the appeal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document