Sarjoo Prosad, C.J.—The petitioners have applied for review of our decision dated 4th January, 1960 given in First Appeal No. 68 of 1954.

2. The appeal arose out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 5,000/- from the defendant. In the written statement, the defendants admitted the claim to that extent, but at the same time, pleaded that there were further transactions between the parties on mutual and current account, as a result of which the entire amount due to the plaintiff had been paid off and that in fact, on adjustment the defendants were entitled to recover a further sum of Rs. 6,319/12/9 from the plaintiff for which the defendants preferred to a counter-claim in the suit and paid court-fee thereon. The suit was instituted on the 1st February, 1951. The trial court dismissed the claim of the plaintiff, but decreed the counter-claim of the defendants for a modified sum of Rs. 4,240/2/9 on 31st July, 1954. Against that decree, an appeal was filed to this Court on 18th October, 1954 and eventually decided by us under the judgment which is sought to be reviewed. It should be observed that when the appeal was filed, the defendants-respondents also preferred a cross-objection in which they prayed for a decree for the entire amount of their counterclaim This Court held that the defendants had not been able to substantiate their claim, while the plaintiffs claim had been established. In that view, this Court reversed the decision of the trial court and decreed the suit of the plaintiff with costs throughout dismissing the counter-claim of the defendants.

3. The only ground on which this application for review is founded is that since the suit was valued at Rs. 5,000/-, an appeal under sec. 21 of the Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1950 (No. VII of 1950) lay to the District Court against the decree of the trial court and not this Court. Therefore, it is submitted this Court had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and accordingly, the decision passed by this Court should be vacated and the suit dismissed.

4. The learned counsel has sought to fortify his submissions on the authority of the well-known case of The Colonial Sugar Refinery Company Ltd. vs. Irving (1) and the decision of the Supreme Court in Garikapati vs. Subbiah Chowdhry (2), where it has been repeatedly held that the right of appeal is not a matter of mere procedure but is a substantive right. The institution of the suit carries with it the implication that all rights of appeal then in force are preserved to the parties thereto till the rest of the carrier of the suit. It is contended that since the suit was instituted on the 1st of February, 1961, the appeal did not lie to this Court, but the appeal lay only to the District Court and, therefore, this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

It is further pointed that the limitation for filing the appeal to the District Court was within 30 days from the date of the decree and the appeal presented to this Court was much beyond the above period of, limitation available under Art. 152, Limitation Act.

5. In our opinion, none of these objections can be entertained and we do not think that they are fit grounds for interference in this application for review, It appears that sec. 21 of the Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1950 was amended on 26th May, 1951, but the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that this amendment came into operation after the institution of the suit and, therefore, did not affect the incident of the suit as to the forum of the appeal. It must be conceded that a defect of jurisdiction, whether pecuniary, territorial or in respect of the subject-matter, strikes at the very authority of the Court to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties. Even so, there is no substance in the contention that there was any inherent lack of jurisdiction in this Court to entertain the appeal. Under sec. 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court had power to transfer th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document