The value of the subject-matter of the dispute on appeal need not be more than Rs. 20,000 on the date of the suit in the court of first instance to satisfy the requirements of Art. 133(1)(a) of the Constitution.

JAGADISAN, J. :- The question raised is of some importance, as it relates to the right of appeal to the Supreme Court under Art. 133(1)(a) of the Constitution read along with Sec. 110 C.P.C. I agree with the judgment of my learned brother; but, I however, wish to add a few words, having regard to the fact that no direct decision on the precise point now in issue has been brought to our notice. The facts of the case giving rise to this petition have been fully set out by Kailasam and they need not be repeated.

2. A right of appeal is a substantive right, though it stems from a statute or the Constitution, and is not inherent to every defeated suitor. The constitutional provisions dealing with the right of appeal to the Supreme Court have to be read with due regard to the qualifications, limitations and restrictions contained therein; but with a liberality which would favour an appeal being preferred rather than with the stringency that would defeat it if the words are sufficiently clear, either, for or against an appeal, there can be no issue regarding the right. If, however, the words are ambiguous and are capable of being construed as sustaining a right of appeal, or as conferring such a right, it would he proper and legitimate for the court to uphold the right. This, in my opinion, is a sound canon of construction of statutes. Broadly stated, the ambiguity resulting from the language of an enactment is resolved by adopting that meaning which accords with justice and good sense (Countess of Rothesr. Kirkcadly Waterworks Commissioners, 1882-7 AC 694). As between two constructions which, are open, both being equally plausible the court may lean in favour of the more reasonable of the two, R. v. Halliday, 1917 AC 260.

3. Now we have to construe the words in Art, 133 of the Constitution in conjunction with Sec. 110 C.P.C. The latter provision does not call for any interpretation; the test of pecuniary valuation is that the amount or value of the subject-matter of the suit in the court of first instance must be Rs. 20,000 or upwards and the value of the subject-matter in dispute on appeal to the Supreme Court must be the same sum or upwards. The language of Art. 133 is not identical with, that in S. 110 C.P.C. The words in Art. 133 (1)(a) are

"the amount or value of the subject-matter of the dispute in the court of first instance and still in dispute on appeal was and is not less than twenty thousand rupees............"

Instead of the words "the subject-matter of the suit" occurring in Sec. 110 C. P. C, the words "the subject-matter of the dispute" are found in Art. 133. The words "still in dispute" in Art. 133 are, not to tie found in Sec. 110 C.P.C. But for these two features, the phraseology, both in the Constitution and in the Civil Procedure Code, is almost identical. Does the difference pointed out connote different meanings and thereby bring about a repugnancy between the two, is the vital point to be decided. It is quite obvious that, in case where there is any conflict between Art. 133 of the Constitution and Sec. 110 C.P.C. the Constitution should prevail. It seems to me that the words "the subject-matter of the suit" and the words "the subject-matter of the dispute" in the court, of first instance connote the same meaning, that is, the amount or value of the subject-matter of the contest between the parties in the court of first instance. The language of the Constitution is perhaps a little more clear than that employed in the Civil Procedure Code in regard to the matter.

The words "still in dispute on appeal" have caused me some difficulty in interpreting the constitutional provision. It is possible to construe Art. 133(1)(a) as meaning that the dispute between the parties which survives for being agitated before the Supreme Court should alone be valued, and that the amount or value of the dispute should be not less than Rs. 20,000 both at the time when the suit was instituted and at the time when the appellate jud