JAIN, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS second appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, the 'cpc'), on behalf of the defendant- appellant, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10th of May, 2000, passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 83/95, whereby the appeal of the plaintiff-respondent was allowed an the suit of the plaintiff-respondent was decreed against the judgment and decree dated 23rd of September, 1995 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Civil Suit No. 90/95, whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,297. 68 p. was dismissed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent raised a preliminary objection about maintainability of the present second appeal. His contention is that this second appeal has arisen out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 6297. 68 p. , whereas Section 102 of the C. P. C. has been amended with effect from 1st of July, 2002 vide C. P. C. (Amendment) Act, 2002, and, in view of the amended Section 102, the second appeal does not lie from any decree where the subject-matter of the original suit is for recovery of money not exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees. He contended that the appeal has not been admitted so far, therefore, the same is not saved by Section 16 (2) (a) of the C. P. C. (Amendment) Act, 2002 and, as such, the present second appeal is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable. He placed reliance upon the decisions of this Court in the following cases : 1. Unna Ram vs. Smt. Geeta Devi [rlr 2003 (2) 423] 2 Mangi Lal vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi, [2003 (3) WLC (Rajasthan) 352] = (2003 (4) RLW (Raj.) 2146) Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant contended that the present second appeal was filed in this court on 24th of August, 2000, whereas Section 102 of the C. P. C. was amended vide C. P. C. (Amendment) Act, 2002, with effect from 1st of July, 2002, therefore, the said Amendment is not applicable on the present case. He also contended that even if the subject-matter of the original suit for recovery of money does not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees and if a substantial question of law is involved then second appeal is maintainable, therefore, the present second appeal should not be dismissed being not maintainable in view of the amendment made in Section 102 of the C. P. C. Whether the second appeal filed but not admitted before 1st of July, 2002 is governed by amended Section 102 of the C. P. C. , is a question which is required to be answered in the present case. Section 102 of the C. P. C. was amended with effect from 1st of July, 2002, vide C. P. C. (Amendment) Act, 2002. As per unamended Section 102 of the C. P. C. it was provided that no second appeal shall lie from any decree when the subject-matter of the original suit is for recovery of money not exceeding rupees three thousand, whereas, as per amended Section 102, the amount of Rs. 3,000/- has been substituted to a sum of Rs. 25,000/-, meaning thereby - after 1. 07. 2002 it has been provided that no second appeal shall lie from any decree when the subject-matter of the original suit is for recovery of money not exceeding Rs. 25,000/ -.
(3.) SECTION 16 of the C. P. C. Amendment) Act, 2002, provides for repeal and savings, and the relevant part thereof is as under: (1 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) Notwithstanding that the provisions of this Act have come into force or repealed under sub-section (1) has taken effect and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of SECTION 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 : (a) The provisions of SECTION 102 of the Principal Act, as substituted by SECTION 5 of this Act, shall not apply to or effect any appeal which had been admitted before the commencement of SECTION 5, and every such appeal shall be disposed of as if SECTION 5 had not come into force. . . . . . . " The above referred Section 16 of the C. P. C. (Amendment) Act, 2002, makes it clear that the provisions of Section 102 of the Principal Act, as substituted by Section 5 of the C. P. C. (Amendment) Act, 2002, shall not apply to or effect any appeal which had been admitted before commencement of Section 5 of the C. P. C. (Amendment) Act, 2002. Therefore, it leaves no doubt that by virtue of Section 16 of the C. P. C. (Amendment) Act, 2002, only those appeals have been saved which had been admitted before commencement of Section 5 of the C. P. C. Amendment) Act, 2002, with effect from 1st of July, 2002. The above question was also considered by this Court in the case of Unna Ram vs. Smt. Geeta Devi [rlr 2003 (2) 413], wherein the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Others vs. Indian Charge Chrome & Another, (1999) 7 SCC 314, was considered and therein their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that mere pendency of an application does not govern the law applicable and it is the relevant law prevailing on the date of decision-making which has to be applied. This Court in Unna Ram's case (supra) further considered the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Anand Gopal Sheorey vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 915, wherein their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that no person has a vested right in any course of procedure. It is the law and the manner prescribed for the time-being by or for the Court in which the case is pending and if by the Act of the Parliament the mode of procedure is altered, he has no other right other than to proceed according to the altered mode. In other words, the change in law of procedure operates retrospectively and unlike the law relating to vested right, is not only prospective. ;