JAGDISH SAHAI, J. :- The learned Additional Civil Judge, Aligarh, has made the instant reference to this Court under the provisions of section 113, C. P. C.

2. It would contribute to a clear understanding of the matter requiring consideration at our hands if we first reproduce the relevant provisions which are material for the decision of this case.

3. This Court has amended O. XXXIX rule 2, C. P. C. by deleting sub-rules (3) and (4) therefrom and by adding the following rule which has been numbered as "rule 2A":

"2A (1). In the case of disobedience to an injunction issued under rule 1 or rule 2, sub-rule (2), or of breach of any terms of any such injunction, the Court in which the suit is proceeding may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding six months, unless in the meantime the Court directs his release,

(2) No attachment under this rule shall remain in force for more than one year, at the end of which time, if the disobedience or breach continues, the property attached may be sold, and out of the proceeds the Court may award such compensation as it thinks fit, and shall pay the balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto."

Order XLIII Rule 1 was also amended as follows :-

"XLIII (1) (c). In clause (r) add the words "Rule 2-A" between the words "Rule 2" and "Rule 4".

The result of the amendment is that so far as this State is concerned O. XLIII rule 1 now reads:

" XLIII (1). An appeal shall lie from the following orders under the provisions of section 104, namely:

.. .. ..

.. .. ..

(r) an order under rule 1, rule 2, rule 2A, rule 4 or rule 10 of Order XXXIX."

4. Misc. Appeal No. 82 of 1959 was filed in the court of the District Judge, Aligarh, who transferred it for hearing to the court of the Additional Civil Judge, Aligarh. This appeal was directed against the order passed by a Munsif in which he held that Prakash Chandra (the appellant before the District Judge) had disobeyed the injunction order passed by the Munsif.

5. When the appeal came up for hearing before the Additional Civil Judge, an objection was taken that it was not competent. The argument was that the right of appeal is a substantive right and inasmuch as the Code of Civil Procedure did not expressly confer a right in respect of a matter now covered by sub-rule (2) (A) of Order XXXIX, C. P.C., the appeal was incompetent.

6. The amendments to the two rules mentioned above have been made by this Court under the provisions of S. 122, C. P. C. which reads:

"122. High Courts not being the Court of a Judicial Commissioner may, from time to time after previous publication, make rules regulating their own procedure and the procedure of the Civil Courts subject to their superintendence, and may by such rules annul, alter or add to all or any of the rules in the First Schedule."

Mr. Saxena, who has appeared for the appellant Prakash Chandra, has contended that under the provisions aforesaid only a rule of procedure could be annulled, altered or added to and inasmuch as a right of appeal is not a matter of procedure but is a substantive right, this Court had no power to amend O. XXXIX rule 2 and Order XLIII rule 1 (r) as it has done.

7. It is not necessary for us to enter into the question whether a right of appeal is a purely substantive right without having in it any element of procedure. What is required to be seen is whether under the provisions of section 122, C. P. C. the two rules mentioned above could or could not be amended in the manner they have been amended by this Court.

8. There cannot be any manner of doubt that the language of section 122 is categorical and of wide amplitude. The provision clearly empowers a High Court to annul, alter or add to all or any of the rules contained in the First Schedule. The power is not confined to some rules only but extends to each and every rule falling in the First Schedule.

9. Mr. K C