Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—This is an application under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1, C.P.C. for the review of the order of this Court dated 14.9.2004. By the said order the Court directed that the records of this First Appeal From Order be remitted to the Court of District Judge, Kanpur Nagar as the appeal was cognizable by the District Judge on account of its low valuation of Rs. 5,000/- only (Five thousand).

2. The brief facts leading to the presentation of the above review application are that an original suit No. 214 of 1981 having valuation of Rs. 5,000/- was instituted for specific performance of an agreement. The suit was decreed by the Court of first instance vide judgment and order dated 4.3.1983. Against the aforesaid judgment, order and decree, an appeal was preferred being Civil Appeal No. 358 of 1983. The appeal was decided by the 5th Additional Civil Judge vide judgment and order dated 7.10.1985. The appeal was allowed, the judgment order and decree of the Court below was set aside and the matter was remanded for retrial.

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of remand, this First Appeal From Order No. 15 of 1986 under Order 43 Rule 1(u), C.P.C. was preferred which was duly entertained. However, in the due course of time when this appeal came to be listed for hearing, the Court found that in view of the amendment to Section 21 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 vide U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991 i.e. U.P. Act No. 17 of 1991 which was enforced w.e.f 15.1.1991, the appeal is cognizable by District Judge. Accordingly the Court ordered its transfer to the District Court having jurisdiction.

4. Learned Counsel for the applicants (Defendants-Appellants) has submitted that the Court has committed an error apparent on the face of the record in transferring this appeal to the District Judge as First Appeal From Order exclusively lay before the High Court under Order 43 Rule 1(u), C.P.C., and this jurisdiction would not been affected by the U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991. The second submission is that the Civil Appeal No. 352 of 1983 was preferred before the District Judge, but was transferred to the Court of 5th Additional Civil Judge, therefore the decision of the 5th Additional Civil Judge is in exercise of powers of District Judge and accordingly no further appeal would lie against the said judgment and order before the District Judge.

5. To appreciate the first point it is necessary to examine the relevant provisions of Section 21 of the Bengal, Agra & Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 which are reproduced hereunder :

"21. Appeals from Subordinate Judges and Munsifs.—(1) Save as aforesaid, an appeal from a decree or order of a Subordinate 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.

(2) Save as aforesaid an appeal from a decree or order of a Munsif shall lie to the District Judge.

(3) ..............................................................................

(4) .............................................................................”

6. The said Section 21 of the Act in its applicability to the State of U.P. was amended by U.P. Act No. 4 of 1936. The word ‘subordinate’ wherever it occurs in Section 21 was substituted by the word ‘civil’. Subsequently, by U.P. Act No. 17 of 1991 w.e.f. 15.1.1991 the entire sub-section (1) has been replaced and has been substituted by sub-sections (1), (1-A) and (1-B). Therefore, after applying the aforesaid amendment Section 21 of the Act in its applicability to the State of U.P. now reads as under :

“(1) Save as aforesaid an appeal from a decree or order of a civil Judge shall lie,—

(a) to the High Court in any case other than a case referred to in clause (b);

(b) to the District Judge where the value of the original suit in whic