- (1.) THE short point for decision in the present case is whether it is within the power of this Court to make a rule which has the effect of depriving a litigant of his right of appeal to the Supreme court.
(2.) WHEN the High Court at Simla was created in the year 1947 it was called upon to decide a large number of cases relating to the East Punjab which were pending in the High Court at lahore. These cases could be disposed of either by increasing the number of Judges of this Court or by amending the rules so as to provide that certain second appeals which were being heard and disposed of by Benches of two Judges should in the future be heard and disposed of by a judge sitting alone. As the second alternative was more in consonance with the financial resources of the State than the first, it was decided that all second appeals in which the value of the appeal does not exceed Rs. 2,000/- in a land suit or Rs. 5,000/- in a money or unclassed suit should in future be placed before and decided by a single judge. The new rule came into force on the 8th May 1951.
(3.) WHEN the first batch of second appeals which were regulated by the new rule was placed before a learned Judge of this Court an objection was promptly taken that it was not within the competence of this Court to make a rule which was calculated to divest litigants of their vested rights of appeal to the Supreme Court. As the point raised is of considerable importance and as it is likely to affect a large number of appeals which are pending in this Court the following question has been referred to us for decision, namely; "whether the amendment to Rule 1 Chapter 3-B High Court Rules and Orders Volume V governs appeals arising from cases instituted before the 8th of May 1951?";