RAIMATI SAHUANI Vs. PANKAJA SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant -petitioner seeks an order of this Court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of First Appeal No. 106 of 1977 valued at Rs. 14,430/ - arising out of the judgment and decree dated April 30, 1976 and May 11, 1976 respectively, passed by the learned Subordinate judge, Balangir, in Title Suit No. 22 of 1954, presented in this Court on July 17, 1976. It has been urged by Mr. Swain for the appellant -petitioner that on and from January 1, 1985, the Orissa Civil Courts Act, 1984 (Orissa Act 18 of 1984) (for short, the 'Act') came into force conferring jurisdiction on the District Judges of the State to entertain appeals arising out of decrees or orders in which the suits or proceedings have been valued at rupees twenty thousand or less and as Section 13 of the Act provides for continuance of the proceedings in the Courts which are now clothed with higher jurisdiction and there is no express provision in the Act that the pending appeals will continue to be heard in this Court, the appeal is now to be heard by the District Judge, Balangir. It has been contended on behalf of the respondents -opposite parties that the Act can have no effect on the appeals pending in this Court in respect of suits or proceedings valued at reduces twenty thousand or less which have been presented in this Court prior to the coming into force of the Act.

(2.) IN AIR 1986 On 30 : 1985 (II) OLR 309, Duryodhan Samal v, Smt. Uma Dei and Ors., this Bench hid the occasion to interpret Section 16 of the Act and consider as to whether appeals arising out of the suits or proceedings instituted prior to the commencement of the Act which had been valued at rupees twenty thousand or less would lie to this Court or to the Courts of the District Judges. It has been held that appeals presented on the coming into force of the Act arising out of suits or proceedings valued at rupees twenty thousand or less irrespective of whether the suits Or proceedings have been instituted prior or subsequent to the coming into force of the Act shall lie to the District Judges and not to the High Court. Some other Division Benches of this Court have held the same view. The question raised in this appeal was not directly involved in the aforesaid reported case.

(3.) SECTION 13 of the Act provides :