CLARA Vs. AUGUSTINE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals have been brought by defendants 2 and 3 in O. S. No. 166 of 1982 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Cochin and the defendant in O. S. No. 220 of 1979 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Alleppey from the judgments and decrees dated 20-8-1983 and 15-4-1981 respectively. The former appeal was filed in this court on 20-2-1984 and the latter on 13-2-1984. These suits were instituted, O. S. No. 166 of 1982 on 5-7-1982 and O. S. No. 220 of 1979 on 5-9 1978. After the decrees in the two cases, S.13 of the Civil Courts Act was amended by substituting the words "Rs. 25,000/-" for the words "Rs. 10,000/-". This was done by Ordinance 9 of 1984 which came into force on 6-1-1984. The office has raised a doubt whether in view of the amendment brought about by the Ordinance, the appeals could be maintained in this court or whether they lie in the District Court as in both cases the valuation was above Rs. 10,000/- and below Rs. 25,000/-. As the appeals have, not been numbered and respondents have not entered appearance, we heard Mr. Krishnamoorthy, learned Government Pleader for assistance.

(2.) S.12, Civil Courts Act enacts that save as provided in S.13, regular and special appeals shall, when such appeals are allowed by law, lie from the decrees or orders of a District Court or a Subordinate Judge's Court to the High Court. S.13(1) before it was amended by the Ordinance, provided that appeals from the decrees and orders of a Munsiff's Court and where the amount or value of the subject matter of the suit does not exceed ten thousand rupees from the original decrees and orders of a Subordinate Judge's Court shall, when such appeals are allowed by law, lie to the District Court. It is the words "ten thousand rupees" that occur in the sub-section that have been now substituted by the Ordinance with the words ''Twenty five thousand rupees". The short point to be considered is whether the enhancement of the value by the Ordinance is retrospective so as to take in suits instituted before the introduction of the amendment or not.

(3.) For a decision of the point it would be helpful to extract the following passage from Para.23 of Garikapati v. Subbiah Chaudhry ( AIR 1957 SC 540 ):