AGARWAL M Vs. R N GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge, Justice B. Subhashan Reddy holding C.C.C.A. Nos.39, 41, 47 and 49 of 1994' to be maintainable before him and as being not necessary to be listed before a Division Bench. Since this is the only question urged, we have heard the counsels on both sides and this case is disposed of at the admission stage.

(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts are:- O.S. No.856 of 1985 was filed on 22-7-1985 for specific performance of contract regarding sale of shops and residential portions on the first floor. The suit though instituted for higher valuation, yet only the third plaintiff pursued the suit for the relief claimed by him. The value of the property claimed by the 3rd plaintiff who is the respondent in the appeals was Rs.1,52,000./- and the claim being decreed,C.C,C.A.Nos.39,41,47 and 49of 1994 have been preferred. All the appeals relate to the same shops and corresponding portion thereon valued at Rs.1,52,000/- and each of the appeals are valued as such.

(3.) Mr. D.V. Reddy, the learned Counsel for the respondent in the appeals and present appellant, took an objection as to the maintainability of the appeals by the learned single Judge contending that the rights of appeal of the appellants are to be determined in accordance with the date of institution of suit as the right to appeal is a vested right and that since 28-7-1985, i.e., the date of the suit, the single Judge had jurisdiction to entertain the appeals valued at Rs.50,000/- only. Under the Rules of High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh (Appellate Side) the appeals are not maintainable before the single Judge. It is the contention that the amendment of the Rules of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh (Appellate Side) on 27-3-1986 enhancing pecuniary limits from P.s.50,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/- so far as the single Judge is concerned is not applicable to the appeals preferred by the appellants. The learned single Judge rejected the submissions holding that an appeal has to be instituted in the forum as is provided for and existing on the date on which the appeals are presented as the rule relating to entertainment of the appeals before the single Bench or Division Bench are the rules of procedure and retrospective in nature.