The right to appeal is a substantive right and can only be taken away by a subsequent enactment if it expressly provides for it.

Anil Kumar, J.

1. Matter is taken in revised cause list. None appeared on behalf of respondents. Heard the arguments of Sri Mohd. Shakeel, learned Counsel for the revisionist. Facts, in brief, of the present case are that revisionist is the owner/landlord of House No. 439/6-Kha, Mohalla Peer Bukhara, opposite Kalicharan College, Hardoi Road, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as property in dispute'), under the tenancy of opposite party No. 2/Kamal Ahmad.

2. Revisionist filed a suit for arrears of rent, ejectment and damages against opposite party No. 2, registered as SCC Suit No. 19/94 (Vakeel Ahmad v. Kamal Ahmad) in the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 2 Lucknow in which defendant/tenant Sri Kamal Ahmad put his appearance. Thereafter Sri Kamal Ahmad filed a suit for declaration in respect to property in dispute alleging himself as owner, in the Court of Civil Judge, Mohanlalganj (S.D.) Lucknow registered as Regular Suit No. 96 of 2003 (Rashid Khan v. Vakeel Ahmad).

3. Subsequently an application under section 24, C.P.C. for transferring the Regular Suit No. 96 of 2003 (Rashid Khan v. Vakeel Ahmad) to the Court of Additional District Judge Court No. 2 so a Misc Case No. 139-C/2007 (Rashid Khan v. Vakeel Ahmad and others) has been registered before District Judge, Lucknow, after hearing learned Counsel for the parties, by order dated 25.8.2007, allowed transferred the said matter/suit to the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 2 by placing the reliance on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nagappa v. Doda Bharamappa and another , 2001 (42) ALR 634 (SC).

4. Aggrieved by the said order, present revision has been filed challenging the order dated 25.8.2007 passed by District Judge, Lucknow passed in Misc Case No. 139-C/2007 (Rashid Khan v. Vakeel Ahmad and others).

5. On 16.11.2007 this Court has passed an order, the same is quoted as under:

Issue notice

Till next date of listing, although proceedings in the transferee Court shall continue but the delivery of final judgment shall remain stayed.

6. Sri Mohd. Shakeel, learned Counsel for the revisionist while challenging the impugned order submits that the same is illegal arbitrary in nature as the jurisdiction in respect to try the suit filed by Rashid Khan for declaration vested with Civil Judge, Mohanlalganj (S.D.) Lucknow where the suit has been instituted and in view of the impugned order by which the said suit has been transferred from the said Court to the Court to Additional District Judge, Lucknow Court No. 2, one right to appeal of the revisionist will be fortified because if the suit is decided by Civil Judge then in that circumstances the first appeal will He to Additional District Judge and second appeal will lie to Hon'ble High Court. In this regard he placed reliance on the section 21(1)(b) of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Court Act, 1887 amended by the U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991 (U.P. Act No. 31 of 1990) which is quoted as under:

Amendment of section 21- in section 21 of the principal Act,-

(a) for sub-sections (1), (1-A) and (1-B) the following sub-sections shall be substituted, namely:

(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 which or in any proceeding arising out of which the decree or order was made, whether instituted or commenced before or after the relevant date did not exceed one lakh rupees or such higher amount not exceeding five lakh rupees as the High Court may fix from time to time by notification in the Official Gazette.

7. According he submits that the District Judge has completely ignored the said position while passing the impugned order dated 25.8.2007 and wrongly placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nagappa v. Doda Bharamappa and another (supra) not applicable, so the s