MOTICHAND JAIN Vs. JAIKUMAR M

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a reference mad by one of us (TCSR,J.), the matter has come up before us for adjudication.

(2.) It is expedient to look at the factual matrix at the threshold for brevity and better understanding of the matter. A suit seeking the relief of specific performance of the contract of sale was filed in O.S.No. 28 of 1980 on the file of the II Additional judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The property which is the subject matter of the suit was valued at Rs. 45,000.00 for the purposes of Court fee and Court jurisdiction. Eventually, the suit ended in dismissal at the culmination of the trail by the judgment dated 31-12-1990. During the pendency of the suit, the A.P. Civil Courts (Amendment) Act 30 of 1989 (for brevity 'the Act 30/89') raising the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Courts had been passed and came into effect from 2-12-1989 onwards. Under the said Act, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court/Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, to entertain an appeal was raised from the existing limit of Rs. 30,000.00 to Rs.1 lakh. In view of the said amendment the unsuccessful plaintiff sought to file the appeal against the Judgment and decree in O.S.No. 28 of 1980 before the Court of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. In the ordinary course, the appeal lies against the Judgment and decree passed by the learned II additional, Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, to the Hiah Court but for the amendment to the Civil Court Act raising the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court. On an objection taken by the office about the maintainability of the appeal before the Court of the Chief Judge, the objection was heard and under the impugned order dated 26-4-1991, in A.S.SR No. 5674 of 1991 the learned Chief Judge held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and the appeal ought to have been filed before the High Court inasmuch as the amendment brought to the Civil Courts Act under the Act 30/89 was not retrospective in operation. Assailing the said order, the present CMA No. 1454 of 1991 was filed. Initially the matter had come up before one of us (TCSR,J.) for adjudication and eventually it was referred to a larger bench having been of the view that the two Division Bench Judgments of this Court in Saraswathula Kameswaramma and another v. M/s. Radhakrishna & Co. and K.Hara Gopal v. K. Venkata Ratna Kumar need to be reconsidered. That is how the matter has now come up before us for adjudication.

(3.) Having regard to the above factual matrix the points that arise for our determination are