Sinha, C. J. - (1.) When we had finished the hearing of the case on December 13, 1962, we intimated to the parties that the appeal was allowed and that our reasons would follow.
(2.) The only question for determination in this appeal is whether under the provisions of the U.P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act (U.P. XXIV of 1954) - which hereinafter will be referred to as the Act a first appeal in a suit decided prior to the enactment of the Act, involving a valuation of less than ten thousand rupees could be transferred for hearing and disposal to a District Judge or Additional District Judge. The First Additional District Judge, Allahabad, is the 'first respondent in this appeal and appeared through counsel at the hearing. The other respondents, who were the respondents in the main appeal, have not entered appearance and apparently are not interested in the result of this appeal.
(3.) In order to bring out the points in controversy between the parties it is necessary to State the following facts. The appellant, as plaintiff, instituted Suit No. 7 of 1949 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Mathura, for possession of certain properties, on January 26, 1949, against respondents 2 and 3. That suit stood dismissed on November 27, 1951. The unsuccessful plaintiff preferred a first appeal to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, and it was numbered First Appeal No. 37 of 1952. The First Appeal aforesaid remained pending in the High Court from February 8, 1952, when it was instituted, until April 23, 1952, when it was notified to the parties that the appeal had been transferred to the Court of the District Judge, Allahabad, for hearing. His order was passed by the learned Chief Justice in Chambers, under S. 24 (1)(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, on his own motion without notice to the parties concerned. The order of the Chief Justice is in these terms: "It is hereby ordered that first appeals mentioned in the list annexed hereto transferred under orders of this Court to the Court of the District Judge, Allahabad, are now transferred from that Court to the Court of the 1st Additional District Judge at Allahabad. In the list annexed is the appeal now in question, alongwith a number of other appeals. This order of the learned Chief Justice appears to have been passed in view of the recent legislation, the Act aforesaid, which amended a large number of statutes, one of them being the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act (XII of 1887). Section 21, cl. (a) of sub-sec. (1) was amended so as to substitute 'ten thousand rupees' for 'five thousand rupees', thus enabling District Courts to entertain first appeals up to a valuation of ten thousand rupees. The appellant appeared before the Court and raised a preliminary objection as to the jurisdiction of that Court to hear the appeal. That Court overruled the preliminary objection as to its jurisdiction by its order dated May 31, 1962, observing that it could not contravene the orders of the High Court and that the remedy of the appellant, if any, lay in the High Court itself. Thereupon the appellant moved the High Court under Art. 226 and 227, of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari for calling for the records of the appeal, and for a writ of Prohibition restraining the first respondent from hearing the appeal. The writ petition was placed before a single Judge of that Court (Dwivedi J.), who by his order dated July 11, 1962, dismissed the petition in view of a Division Bench ruling of the same Court in a judgment dated November 14, 1961, in the case of Sarjudei v. Rampati Kunwari, 1962 All LJ 544. The learned Single Judge rightly pointed out that he could not go behind the decision of the Division Bench, even though it was pressed upon him that the decision required reconsideration. The appellant then preferred an appeal from the order of the learned Single Judge, dismissing the appeal in limine. The appeal being Special Civil Appeal No. 82 of 1962, was dismissed summarily on July 20, 1962, on the ground that the question raised in the appeal was concluded by the decision of the Division Bench aforesaid. The Division Bench refused to refer the question to a larger bench and preferred to follow that decision. The appellant moved the High Court for special leave to appeal to this Court which was granted, and that is how the appeal has come to this Court. The Division Bench pointed out that though the question had "been exhaustively dealt with by this Court in 1962 All LJ 544 "the case involved a substantial question of law and was one of general importance as a large number of such cases were pending. In view of those considerations, the Court granted the certificate under Art. 133(1)(c) of the Constitution. Curiously enough the Court granted costs to the appellant against the First Additional District Judge, Allahabad, who was the opposite party No. 1 in the High Court in those proceedings.;