AMBILI Vs. FEDERAL BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge's Court, Attingal in O.S.No. 101/2002. Admittedly, the valuation shown in the plaint was Rs. 1,14,000/- as on the date of institution of the suit and an appeal will lie from the decree passed in the said suit only to the District Court as per the provisions of Section 13 of the Civil Courts Act, which reads as follows:

(2.) Along with the appeal now filed before this --Court there was a petition for condonation of delay. Hence notice was ordered on the same and the respondent entered appearance and raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the appeal.

(3.) A Division Bench of this Court prima facie felt that the appeal will lie to the District Court and the matter was posted for hearing. Learned Counsel for the appellants contends that as per the provisions of Section 3(13) of the High Court Act, an appeal will lie to this Court. According to him, even though the Civil Courts Act was amended enhancing the value, no corresponding amendment was made in the High Court Act. According to us, this is besides the point. As per Section 3 of the High Court Act, it only deals with the power of the Single Judge in matters where the Forum for filing an appeal is this Court. In other words, if an appeal lies to this Court, the question as to whether the matter should be heard by a Single Bench or Division Bench is dealt with under Sections 3 and 4 of the High Court Act respectively. In this case Forum for appeal is to be decided based on the provisions contained in the Civil Courts Act and admittedly an appeal will lie to the District Court. If that be so, the argument based on Section 3 of the High Court Act, is not tenable. Learned Counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Mary v. Pappu 2001 (1) KLT 12. That is a case where an appeal was heard by a Division Bench and ultimately the appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, a review petition was filed. This Court held that the amendment of Civil Courts Act and the enlargement of the appellate jurisdiction of the District Court cannot by itself affect the jurisdiction of the High Court under Sections 3 and 4. This Court also held that a litigant has no right to say as to how many Judges should hear his case. It was also held that the jurisdiction of the District Court as an Appellate Court was enhanced to Rs. 2,00,000/- with effect from 27/3/1996 also cannot affect the question, since the appeal presented was governed by the provisions as it stood prior to the amendment.