The right of appeal to a particular forum is a substantive right and is not lost by alteration in the law, unless provision is made expressly in that behalf, or a necessary implication arises.

P. L. N. SARMA, J.

( 1 ) THESE references have been made by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, visakhapatnam under Section 113 read with Order 46, Rule 1 of the Code of civil Procedure on an objection raised by the respondents before him in the appeals regarding the competency of the said Court to entertain the appeals whose value is less than Rs. 30,000/- arising out ot suits instituted prior to the passing of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Act 19 of 1984), hereinafter referred to as the Act 19 of 1984 .

( 2 ) THE relevant facts are as follows:

( 3 ) RESPONDENTS in the appeals before the learned Illrd Additional District judge, Visakhapatnam were the plaintiffs. Defendants in the respective suits filed the appeals before the IIIrd Additional District Judge.

( 4 ) AS the facts are identical in both the matters, we will take up R. C. (SR) no. 26223 of 1991.

( 5 ) PLAINTIFFS therein filed the suit O. S. No. 197 of 1983 on the file of IInd additional Sub-Court, Visakhapatnam for declaration of title and for recovery of possession, profits etc. The suit was valued at Rs. 22,950/- and the same was instituted on 23-4-1983. Pending the said suit, Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Act 19 of 1984) here in after referred to as the Amending act 19 of 1984 was passed and it came into force on 21-5-1984. By and under the terms of the said Amending Act, 1984, Section 17 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil courts Act, 1972 (Act 19 of 1972), hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act 19 of 1972 , was amended by incorporating "rupees thirty thousand" for the words "rupees fifteen thousand". In other words, by virtue of the said amendment under Act 19of 1984 the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Districtcourt was raised to less than Rs. 30,000/ -. Prior to the amendment, the District Courts had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the judgment of the Subordinate judge s Court upto Rs. 15,000/ -. Under the terms of the Amending Act,19 of 1984,itwas in creased up to Rs. 30,000/ -. If the value of the suit is Rs. 30,000/-and above, the appeal lies to the High Court. This amendment has come into force, as stated above, on 21-5-1984. The suit whose value was Rs. 22,950/- was instituted on 23-4-1983. As on that date, under Act 19 of 1972, the appeal therefrom lies to High Court only. The said suit was decreed on 21-8-1990, long after the pecuniaryjurisdictionof the Districtcourtwas raised by the Amending act 19 of 1984.

( 6 ) DEFENDANTS in the said suit preferred the appeal to the Illrd Additional district Court, Visakhapatnam on the ground that as on the date the suit was decreed, viz. , 21-8-1990 and the date on which the appeal was filed, the amending Act 19 of 1984 having come into force, the District Court is competent to entertain the appeal as the value of the subject matter of the suit was only rs. 22,950/- viz. , less than Rs. 30,000/-, Respondents therein took an objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the District Court to entertain the appeal and they raised the contention that the suit having been instituted prior to the coming into force of the Amending Act 19 of 1984 i. e. , on 23-4-1983, the appeal lies only to the High Court. On this question, after hearing both the parties, as stated above, the learned Judge referred the matter to this Court. That is how the matter is placed before us.

( 7 ) THE only question that has to be decided in this reference is, whether the right of appeal provided to the High Court, as on the date of filing of the suit, viz. , 23-4-1983 (whose value was Rs. 22,950/-), is taken away by the Amending Act 19 of 1984, which raised the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court upto Rs. 30,000/-?

( 8 ) IN this connection, it will be useful to refer to the settled principles of law. It is well settled that a right of appeal is a substantive right which vests in a litigant at the date of the filing of the suit, and the same cannot be taken away unless the Legislature ex

Click Here to Read the rest of this document