R D K SITA DEVI GAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these appeals, the office has raised an objection that the appellants have to pay ad valorem Court-fee and not the fixed Court-fee as contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants. We do not agree with the note of the office. Rule 6 (a) which has been amended does not have retrospective effect. The O.Ps. out of which these appeals arise Were instituted in 1962 and the amendment is in 1964. As such, unless the amended rule has been given retrospective effect, it cannot apply and the old rule would apply and as per that rule a fixed Court-fee has to be paid. The right of appeal, it is not denied, is a substantive right and any impairment of the right of appeal by putting a new restriction or imposing an onerous condition would not be a matter of procedure only. It impairs a substantive right and a rule which does so is not retrospective unless it says so expressly or by necessary intendment. The learned Government Pleader draws out attention to section 79 of the Andhra Court-fees Act, which is a repeal and saving provision. This relates to an Act which has been repealed and replaced by another Act. The instant case is not such a one. The Act has not been repealed, but only a rule has been replaced. Prior to the amendment a fixed Court-fee was payable and after the amendment ad valorem Court-fee is payable. Since the right of appeal is a vested right and at the time when the Iis started, only a fixed Court-fee was payable that right continues unless by the amendment retrospective effect is given. As no retrospective effect is given to rule 6 (a) the contention of the learned Counsel must be upheld. We cannot, therefore, accept the office note that the appellants have to pay ad valorem Court-fee. Office objection rejected. Court-fees paid sufficient.