The right to appeal to the Supreme Court is a vested right and cannot be taken away by a rule of procedure by the High Court.

Bhandari, J.

1. The short point for decision in the present case is whether it is within the power of this Court to make a rule which has the effect of depriving a litigant of his right of appeal to the Supreme Court.

2. When the High Court at Simla was created in the year 1947 it was called upon to decide a large number of cases relating to the East Punjab which were pending in the High Court at Lahore. These cases could be disposed of either by increasing the number of Judges of this Court or by amending the rules so as to provide that certain second appeals which were being heard and disposed of by Benches of two Judges should in the future be heard and disposed of by a Judge sitting alone. As the second alternative was more in consonance with the financial resources of the State than the first, it was decided that all second appeals in which the value of the appeal does not exceed Rs. 2,000/- in a land suit or Rs. 5,000/- in a money or unclassed suit should in future be placed before and decided by a single judge. The new rule came into force on the 8th May 1951.

3. When the first batch of second appeals which were regulated by the new rule was placed before a learned Judge of this Court an objection was promptly taken that it was not within the competence of this Court to make a rule which was calculated to divest litigants of their vested rights of appeal to the Supreme Court. As the point raised is of considerable importance and as it is likely to affect a large number of appeals which are pending in this Court the following question has been referred to us for decision, namely;

"Whether the amendment to Rule 1 Chapter 3-B High Court Rules and Orders Volume V governs appeals arising from cases instituted before the 8th of May 1951?"

4. Prior to the enactment of this rule certain second appeals in which the amount in controversy did not exceed the figures mentioned above could be heard only by a Bench of two or more Judges and the litigants who were aggrieved by the order of the High Court were at liberty to prefer another or a third appeal to the Supreme Court under Sections 109 and 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 133 of the Constitution of India. The amended rule, however, provides that those second appeals will in future be heard by a Judge sitting alone. Article 133 (4) declares that no appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from the decree or order of a Judge sitting alone. The combined effect of these provisions is that whereas a litigant governed by the old rules whose case was decided by a Bench of two or more Judges was at liberty to prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court on compliance with the statutory conditions, a litigant governed by the new rules whose case is decided by a single Judge is precluded by the provisions of the Constitution from preferring such an appeal It is true that technically it is open to a person who is dissatisfied with an order of a single Judge to prefer an appeal to a Bench of two Judges under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent and then to prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court, but it must be remembered that this somewhat lengthy and tortuous procedure is beset with difficulties which are not easy to surmount. In the first place he must go to the trouble and expense of arguing his appeal before the single Judge, and secondly, in the event of an unfavourable decision being given, he must obtain a certificate from the Judge that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Letters Patent Bench. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that if as a result of the new rule his right of appeal to the Supreme Court is taken away altogether or so unreasonably encumbered as to render it useless or impracticable, there is a clear interference with vested rights. It is accordingly argued that the new rule ought not to be construed retrospectively, that is, that it should not be deemed to apply to appeals arising out of cases which were instituted on or before the 8th day of May