VILAS VASANTRAO MAHAJAN Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This group of appeal raises a short question whether appeals against decree or orders passed after January 1, 1978 lie to the High Court or District Court. The valuation of the claim in the suit giving rise to the appeals exceeds Rs, 10,000 but is less than Rs. 25,000. The Maharashtra Civil Courts (Enhancement of Pecuniary Jurisdictions and Amendment) Act, 1977 (No. XLVI of 1977), hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act, amending the Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869 (No. XIV of 1869) hereinafter referred to as the Act, was enforced on January, 1, 1978. But for this amendment, appeals against decrees involving such valuation in excess of Rs. 10,000 could have been entertained by the High Court alone. The amended Section 26 of the Act dealing with appeals to the High Court substituted the figure of Rs. 25,000 in place of Rs. 10,000. Resultantly decrees or orders arising out of suits in which amounts or valuation of the subject matter exceed Rs. 25,000 alone could be entertained by the High Court. Other appeals against decrees in suits of lesser valuation would lie to the District Court under Section 8 of the Act.

(2.) APPEAL memos in such cases filed in the High Court were earlier returned for presentation to the proper Court by an order of a Division Bench dated January 23, 1980. Decrees in all these appeals also are passed after January 1, 1978. When these appeals were being so returned, the appellants objected. The appeals were, therefore, placed before one of us (Gadgil, J.) on September 23, 1980 for orders. Such return appeared prime facie to be contrary to the ratio of a Division Bench judgment in Raghunath v. Sadashiv : AIR1951Bom270 . The point was, therefore, referred to the Division Bench for consideration, which has in turn referred it to the Full Bench.

(3.) THE question raised in Raghunath's case (supra) was no doubt identical. The same Section 26 of the Act was amended under the Amendment Act of 54 of 1949 alongwith certain other sections, enhancing the jurisdiction of trial and appellate courts under the Act. Till then the decrees of orders in suits involving the valuation is excess of Rs. 5000 were appealable to the High Court. Under amended Section 26 appeals to the High Court would lie only if such valuation was in excess of Rs. 10,000, The appeal in question was preferred against a decree in a suit instituted prior to the enforcement of the Amendment Act. The suit involved valuation in excess of Rs. 5000, the decree was passed after the enforcement of the Amended Act. The question was if the High Court could entertain such an appeal when the valuation was less than Rs. 10,000 as required under amended law. The Division Bench held that, it could. It was held that right of appeal to superior court stood vested in the suitor on the date of suit and it was liable to be governed by the law in existence on that date, unless taken away by any express provision of the amending Act or by necessary implication thereof. The Division Bench relied in this behalf on the Privy Council judgment in Colonial Sugar Refinery Company Ltd. v. Irving (1905) A.C. 369, and the earlier Full Bench judgment of this Court in Ratanchand Shrichand v. Hanmanta Shivbakas (1869) 6 B.H.C. C.R. 166 and the Division Bench Judgment at in Nana Aba v. Sheku Andu : (1908)10BOMLR330 . The question is how far ratio of this case is relevant here.