KHURSHID CYRUS MEDHORA Vs. CYRUS RATANSHAW MEDHORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question in this reference relates to Notification no. C.0202/92 dated 14.10.2014. By the said notification, inter alia, pecuniary appellate jurisdiction of the High Court and District Court has been revised upwards. On the effective date of the notification (supra) several appeals were pending consideration in the unamended pecuniary appellate jurisdiction; one of such appeal was Gopalsinh Natvarsinh Vasadiya and 4 vs. P.S.I &7- First Appeal No. 835 of 2014. When it came up for consideration before bench of learned Single Judge an issue of transfer of appeal pending in the High Court came to be raised principally relying upon section 30 of the Gujarat Civil Courts Act, 2005 as also Amitbhai Hirabhai Vadodariya vs. Pinalben Prafulbhai Mehta - (2014) 2 GLR 1541, Kiritbhai Melabhai Tadvi vs. Narmada Shankar Premjibhai Dave- 2008(1) GLR 75. On the other hand reliance was placed upon Khurshid Cyrus Medhora vs. Cyrus Ratanshaw Medhora- First Appeal No. 5 of 2013 for maintaining the appeal in the unamended pecuniary jurisdiction. Case of Amitbhai Hirabhai Vadodariya as also Rameshchandra (both supra) persuaded the learned Single Judge hearing Gopalsinh Natvarsinh Vasadiya (supra) to hold that the pending appeal in the High Court in its unamended pecuniary jurisdiction should be transferred to the District Court. Subsequently the case of Khurshid Cyrus Medhora vs. Cyrus Ratanshaw Medhora- First Appeal No. 5 of 2013 came to be listed with the same learned Single Judge on 19.01.2017 wherein following order has been passed; as which has entailed into this reference under consideration:

(2.) In the Gujarat Civil Courts Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the principal Act"), in section 14, for the words "or such other sum as the High Court may, from time to time specify", the words "or such other sum as the High Court may, by notification, from time to time specify" shall be substituted.

(3.) Before proceeding to address the core issue, this court deems it appropriate to note certain inaccuracies found in Gopalsinh Natvarsinh Vasadiya(supra): The pronouncement in case of Amitbhai Hirabhai Vadodariya and Kiritbhai Melabhai Tadvi (both supra) are the pronouncements by the learned Single Judges; but have been inaccurately referred to as the pronouncement by the Division Bench. That apart the cases were cited in the context of section 30(3) of the Gujarat Civil Courts Act, 2005; the cases have addressed pure question of jurisdiction sans the question of revision of pecuniary jurisdiction. Therefore, as would be clear from the following discussion, the said decisions could not have been the basis for the transfer of the case to the District Court.