( 1 ) IN this and connected first Appeals, which are pending in this court since 1950 or 1951 and arise out of suits instituted in 1948 or there about, this Court has on its own motion issued a notice calling upon the parties to the appeals to show cause why they should not be transferred by it under Section 24, C. P. C. to the courts of the District Judges concerned for disposal. The subject-matter of appeal in each of the appeals is valued at more than Rs. 5,000/- and less than rs. 10,000/ -. The appeals were instituted in this court because under the Bengal, Agra and assam Civil Courts Act, 1887, Section 21 (1) (b), as it was in force on the dates of the institution, they lay in this Court end not in the courts of the District Judges. With effect from 30-11-1954, section 21 (1) (b) has been amended by the U. P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act (No. XXIV of 1954), vide serial No. 4 of the Schedule, and the limit to the value of the original suit in which a decree appealable to the District Judge can be passed is raised from Rs 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/ -. The consequence of the amendment is that now similar appeals would lie in the court of the district Judge. Section 3 (1) of the Amendment Act provides that any amendment made by it will not affect the validity of anything already done or any right already acquired and that any proceeding instituted or commenced in any court prior to its commencement will, notwithstanding any amendment made by it, continue to be heard and decided by it. Sub-section (2) provides for the effect of an amendment made by it affecting the period of limitation prescribed for any appeal; it lays down that despite the amendment and despite the fact that the appeal will under the Amending Act "now lie in a different court", the old period of limitation applicable to it, if it has started to run before the commencement of the Act, will continue to be the period of limitation.

( 2 ) SECTION 24, C. P. C. is to the effect that the High Court of its own motion, and without notice to the parties, may at any stage transfer any appeal pending before it for trial or disposal "to any court subordinate to it and competent to try and dispose of the same", or "withdraw any, suit, appeal pending in any court subordinate to it, and-- (1) try or dispose of the same; or (2) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same. "

( 3 ) SINCE under the U. P. Amending Act of 1954. District Judges are now competent to hear appeals like the instant one this court thought of transferring some of them to the District Judges concerned for disposal, but, since the courts power to transfer them was a matter of controversy, this Court took the step of issuing notices to the parties before passing orders of transfer. Except for the appellant in the instant case, all parties are opposed to the transfer. Sri C. B. Misra for the appellant in the instant case informed the Court that he was instructed by his client not to oppose the transfer. We have had the advantage of hearing the arguments of Sri A. K. Kirty in the instant case and of Sri K. C. Saxena, Sri G. N. Kunzru, Sri D. Sanyal and Sri Jagdish Swarup in the connected cases. The burden of the arguments advanced before us was that the U. P. Amending Act has no retrospective effect and does not govern suits instituted before it came into force, that in those suits the parties acquired a right of appeal to the High Court from the civil Judges decree and that as that right has not been taken away by the U. P. Amending Act, their appeals must be heard by this court and cannot be transferred to the District Judges. Numerous authorities were cited in support of the view that a party to a suit acquires, on the date of its institution, a right of appeal in accordance with the law in force on that date. We were referred to Colonial Sugar refining Company Limited v. Irving, 1905 AC 369, Delhi Cloth and General