K.A. MUKTADAR, J

(1) 1. Since the question of law involved in these S. Rs. is common, they are being disposed of by this common order. The question for consideration is whether the A. P. Civil courts Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is retrospective or prospective. The Office has raised the objection that the Act is retrospective in nature and, therefore, the appeal which has been filed against the decree of the Court of Sub-Judge to the High Court after the Act came into force and in which the valuation is not more than rs. 15,000/ ought to have been filed in the Court of the District judge and not in the High Court.

(2) IN order to appreciate the contentions, it is necessary to examine the relevant provisions of the act. The Act received the assent of the Governor on 13th October 1972. The preamble to the Act provides that it is only to consolidate and amend the law relating to the civil Courts subordinate to the High Court in the State of Andhra pradesh. In Section 1 (3) it is provided that the Act shall come into force in such area and on such date as the Government may, by notification, appoint, and they may appoint different dates for different areas and for different provisions of this Act.

(3) THE next relevant provision which concerns us in this case, is section 17 of the Act, which is as follows:"17 (1) An appeal shall, when it is allowed by law, lie from any decree or order in a civil suit or proceeding: (i) of the District Court, to the High Court, (ii) of the Court of Subordinate Judge, (a) to the District Court, when the amount or value of the subject matter of the suit or proceeding is not more than rupees fifteen thousand; (b) to the High Court, in other cases; and (iii) of the court of District Munsif, to the District Court. (2) The District Judge may, subject to the order of the High court, transfer for disposal any appeal from the decree or order of a court of District Munsif preferred in the District court, to any court of Subordinate Judge within the district. (3) Where a court of Subordinate Judge is established in any district at a place remote from the seat of the District court, the High Court, may, with the previous sanction of the government, direct that an appeal from the decree or order of any court of District Munsif within the local limits of the jurisdiction of such court of Subordinate Judge shall be preferred in the said Court of Subordinate Judge: provided that the District Judge may, from time to time, transfer to his own court, any appeal so preferred, and dispose it of himself".

(4) A plain reading of Section 17 (1) of the Act would show that the right of appeal as provided in the repealed Acts is retained but only the forum has been changed from that of the High Court to the district Court when the value of the subject matter of the suit is not more than Rs 15. 000/- in which case the District Court will be the appellate authority in appeals filed against the decree of the court of Sub-Judge.

(5) THE final relevant section is Section 34 of the Act, which provides as follows :-"34. (1) The Andhra Pradesh, (Andhra Area) Civil Courts act, 1873, the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Civil courts Act 1954 and Section 17 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Small causes Courts Act, 1330 Fasli are hereby repealed. (2) The provisions of Section 8 and 18 of the Andhra Pradesh general Clauses Act, 1891, shall apply upon such repeal. "

(6) ON reading the Act as a whole in general and the Sections referred to above in particular, I am of the opinion that the legislature did not intend this Act to be retrospective. It is true that there are rulings to the effect that provisions in the Act giving power to the government such as in Section 1 (3) of the Act, to notify the fate on which the Act should come into force is a pointer for giving the Act retrospective effect; but this reasoning loses its force when section 34 of the Act, is perused. In Section 34 (2) of the Act, it is specifically provided that provisions of Sections 8 and 18 of the Andhra Pradesh general Clauses Act, 1891 shall appply to the Acts mentioned in section 34 (1) and it is specifically provided under Section 35 that all proceedings taken or orders, judgments and decrees passed by any court before the date of the commencement of this Act shall be deemed always to have been validly taken or passed in accordance with law, it is now well settled that when Sections 8 and 18 of the Andhra pradesh General Clauses Act are made applicable when the previous Acts are repealed, it is a pointer that the Legislature intended that the Act should be prospective and not restrospective. See S. H. T. Swamuluvaru v H R. and C. E. Commissioner and also Doongaramal V. Roopsingh.

(7) I need not dilate on the question as to whether a right of appeal is a vested right or not because, this question of law is well settled that it is a vested right and in case the Legislature intends to curb this right by means of a future legislation, it has got to do so either specifically or such an intention is gathered by implications. As I have pointed out above, it is not possible to deduce from a reading of sections 17 and 34 of the Act, that the Legislature intended that the Act should be retrospective. That apart, the Legislature has not at all curbed the vested right of appeal of the litigant, ic has only changed the forum from that of the High Court to the District Court.

(8) IT is now to be seen as to whether an appeal to a particular forum is also a substantive vested right or it is a procedural right. The learned advocates for the parties, Mr. K. B. Krishna Murthy and Mr. D. Sivaramakrishna submit that an appeal to a particular forum is also a vested right. In support of their contention they have relied upon the ruling in Garikapati V. Subbiah Choudary in which the Supreme court held that (i) the legal pursuit of a remedy, suit, appeal and second appeal are really but steps in a series of proceedings all connected by an intrinsic unity and are to be regarded as one legal proceeding- (ii) The right of appeal is not a mere matter of procedure but is a substantive right. (iii) The institution of the suit carries with it the implication that all rights of appeal then in force are preserved to the parties thereto till the rest of the career of the suit. (iv) The right of appeal is a vested right and such a right to enter the superior court accrues to the litigant and exists as on and from the date the Us commences and although it may be actually exercised when the adverse judgment is pronounced such right is to be governed by the law prevailing at the date of the institution of the suit or proceeding and not by the law that prevails at the date of its decision or at the date of the filing of the appeal. v) This vested right of appeal can be taken away only by a subsequent enactment if it so provides expressly or by necessary intendment and not otherwise.

(9) I had asked the Principal Government Pleader to assist me as this was an important question of law and Mr. S. Ramachandra Reddy appearing for the Principal Government Pleader, has brought to my notice several other decisions to show that a right of appeal to a particular forum is also a substantive right and therefore, it cannot be altered by future Act unless and until it is specifically provided there. in or one can deduce by necessary implication that the Legislature intended so. Mr. S. Ramachandra Reddy had cited a full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Ramanathan v. Lakshmman. In paragraph 10 of the Judgment the learned Judges of the Madras High court held that there are certain principles which can be taken as settled. A right of appeal is a creature of statute. Such a right and the right to appeal to a particular court is a vested right. Being a vested right it will be governed by the law prevailing at the time of the commencement of the suit or proceeding. Similarly, in Mukund deo v. Mahadu the Supreme Court has observed that a right of appeal to a particular forum is a substantive right and is not lost by alteration in the law, unless provision is made expressly in that behalf, or a necessary implication arises.

(10) I therefore, on the strenarth of the above rulings and also on the relevant provisions of the Act hold that the Act is not retrospective but is prospective.

(11) SO far as the merits of these S. Rs. . are concerned, it is to be noted that in S. R. No, 77204 of 1972 the suit which was filed in the year 1969 was decided on 24-2-1972. The Act came into force on 1-11-1972, as per the notification in G. O. Ms. No. 1573 Home, dated 30-10-1972 and the appeal was preferred on 13-11-1972. Similarly, the Judgment of the trial court in S. R No. 13935 of 1972 was pronounced on 24th July, 1972 and the appeal was filed after the Act came into force. Therefore, in any case the right of appeal had accrued to the party on the day the judgment was pronounced and the fact that the party had preferred the appeal after the Act came into force would make no difference. He would have preferred an appeal before the Act had actually come into force. Hence, the objections raised by the office are not accepted. I cannot leave this Judgment without appreciating the assistance rendered by Mr. S. Ramachandra Reddy. The office is directed to number the appeals.