Skip to content


Har Prasad and anr. Vs. Lala Bool Chand - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1937All19; 166Ind.Cas.615
AppellantHar Prasad and anr.
RespondentLala Bool Chand
Excerpt:
.....working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. - no doubt it is well established that the right of appeal is a substantive right and any rule taking away the right of appeal cannot have a retrospective effect so as to destroy that right......by two judges under the rules made by this court. recently the pecuniary jurisdiction of a single judge has been raised up to rupees 2,000 and the appeal is now cognizable by a single judge. the learned counsel for both the parties urge before us that there was a substantive right vested in the appellant to have the appeal heard by a bench of two judges only and not by a single judge. no doubt it is well established that the right of appeal is a substantive right and any rule taking away the right of appeal cannot have a retrospective effect so as to destroy that right. but under section 100, civil p.c., the appellant had a right of appeal to the high court from the decree passed in appeal by the subordinate judge on the grounds mentioned therein. the right was to appeal to the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The question referred to this Bench is whether the appellant can claim as of right that this appeal should be heard by a Bench of two Judges of this Court. The valuation of the appeal is Rs. 1,200 and at the time when it was filed it was cognizable by two Judges under the rules made by this Court. Recently the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Single Judge has been raised up to Rupees 2,000 and the appeal is now cognizable by a Single Judge. The learned Counsel for both the parties urge before us that there was a substantive right vested in the appellant to have the appeal heard by a Bench of two Judges only and not by a Single Judge. No doubt it is well established that the right of appeal is a substantive right and any rule taking away the right of appeal cannot have a retrospective effect so as to destroy that right. But under Section 100, Civil P.C., the appellant had a right of appeal to the High Court from the decree passed in appeal by the Subordinate Judge on the grounds mentioned therein. The right was to appeal to the High Court and not to any particular Bench of this Court. Under Section 108(1), Government of India Act, this High Court has made its own rules providing for the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction by one or more Judges or by Division Courts constituted of two or more Judges. This rule is exclusively for regulating the procedure in this Court as regards the constitution of Benches. We are unable to hold that the appellant has any vested right in such a constitution. If by an amendment of the rules the constitution of the Benches is altered the appeal still lies to the High Court and the appellant cannot claim that the appeal must be heard by a Bench as constituted before the rule was amended. We accordingly hold that the appeal was cognizable by a Single Judge of this Court. Let the case be returned to the Single Judge for disposal.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //