9911796707
TMI Blog1957 (2) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accepted the appeal, reversed the decree of the trial court and decreed the suit. The application for leave to appeal to this Court was dismissed on the ground, inter alia, that the value of the property was only Rs. 11,400 and did not come up to the amount of Rs. 20,000. In this application the petitioner contends that the judgment being one of reversal and the value being above Rs. 10,000, he was entitled, as a matter of right, to come up to this Court on appeal and as that right has been denied to him by the High Court, this Court should, in exercise of its discretion, grant him special leave to appeal to this Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution. It will be convenient at this stage to refer to the statutory provisions relating to appeal from any final judgment, decree or order of a High Court in India to a superior court. This was regulated by the provisions of the Letters Patent of each particular High. Court.' It will suffice for our present purpose to refer to cl. 39 of the Letters Patent, 1865 relating to the High Courts of the three Presidency towns. Under that clause an appeal could be taken to His Majesty in Council from any final judgment, decree or order of the H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 2(b) as meaning any judgment, decree or final 'order of a High Court in a civil, case from which a direct appeal could have been brought to His Majesty in Council, either with or without special leave, if that Act had not, been passed. By s. 4 all proceedings and steps taken in, and orders made and certificates granted by, a High Court. in connection with an appeal to His Majesty in Council, unless the records had been transmitted, were to be deemed to be proceedings and steps taken and orders made and certificates granted in connection with an appeal from that judgment to the Federal Court under the Act and would be concluded, or as the case may be, have effect, accordingly. Under s. 5 every application to His Majesty in Council for special leave to appeal from a judgment to which the Act applied remaining undisposed of immediately before the appointed day would on that day stand transferred to the Federal Court by virtue of the Act and would be disposed of by that Court as if it had been an application duly made to that Court for special leave to appeal from the said judgment. This was followed by the Abolition of Privy Council Jurisdiction Act, 1949 (Act V of 1949), which was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 60, gave a right of appeal to His Majesty in Council from the judgment of the Supreme Court. A special case having been stated for the opinion of the Full Court, that Court on September 4, 1903, gave judgment for the Collector. In the meantime the Judiciary Act, 1903 had been passed and it received the royal assent on August 25, 1903, that is to say about 10 days before the judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court. By s. 38 the jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia' in certain specified matters was made exclusive of the jurisdiction of the several Courts of the States and by s. 39 it was made exclusive in all other matters except as therein provided. Sub-section 2 of s. 39 provided that the several Courts of the States would be invested with Federal jurisdiction in all matters above mentioned except those specified in s. 38, subject to certain conditions and restrictions, one of which was that every decision of a Court of a State from which, at the establishment of the Commonwealth, an appeal lay to the Queen in Council, should be final and conclusive except so far as an appeal might be brought to the High Court. The result of this Act was that Her Majesty in Council cease ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lear intention to that effect is manifested." This proposition of law has been firmly established in English jurisprudence and this decision is accepted as sound and cited with approval in leading text books. As will be presently seen, it has been followed and applied in numerous decisions in England and India and its correctness or authority has not been questioned by any of the learned counsel appearing before us on the present occasion. The principle of the above decision was applied in India by Jenkins C.J.in Nana bin Aba v. Skeku bin Andu [1908] I.L.R. 32 Bombay 337 and by the Privy Council itself in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co.Ltd. v. Income Tax Commissioner, Delhi [1927] L.R. 54 I.A. 421; I.L.R.9 Lah. 284.. In Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Income Tax Commissioner, Delhi (supra) two assessment orders were made, one on June 12, 1923, and the other on March 23, 1924. In each case the sum in dispute exceeded Rs. 10,000. At the request of the assessee two cases were stated by the Commissioner to the High Court under s. 66 of the Indian Income Tax Act. The High Court affirmed the decisions of the Commissioner in January, 1926. The petitioner applied for leave to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if the section now in question is to apply to orders final at the date when it came into force, it must be clearly so provided. Their Lordships cannot find in the section even an indication to that effect. On the contrary, they think there is a clear suggestion that a judgment of the High Court referred to in sub-s. 2 is one which under sub-s. 1 has been. pronounced by " not less than two judges of the High Court ", a condition which was not itself operative, until the entire section came into force. In their Lordships' judgment, therefore, the petitioners in these cases have no statutory right of appeal to. His Majesty in Council. Only by an exercise of the Prerogative is either appeal admissible." The question of finality of order was considered. by this Court in the case of Indira Sohanlal v. Custodian of Evacuee Property, Delhi and others [1955] 2 S.C.R. 1117. In that case the facts shortly stated were as follows: On October 10, 1947, the appellant had arranged with a Pakistani for the exchange of certain properties she left behind at Lahore at the time she migrated to India after the partition for certain lands in a village in the State of Delhi belonging to that Pakistani. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd. V. Irving (supra), she had, on the filing of her application for confirmation in 1948, acquired a vested right to have it determined under. s. 5-A with the attribute of finality and conclusiveness attaching to the order when made just as a litigant acquired a vested right of appeal on the commencement of his suit or proceeding and that vested right could not be taken away by subsequent statute except by express provision or by necessary- intendment. There was, according to the appellant, nothing in s. 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (Central Act XXXI of 1950), which expressly or by necessary intendment took away that vested right. It will' be noticed that at the date. of the commencement of the Central Act XXXI of 1950 no order had actually been made to which the attribute of finality could attach. In these circumstances this Court repelled the contention of the appellant with the following words: "However this may be, it appears to be clear that while a right of appeal in respect of a pending action may conceivably be treated as a substantive right vesting in the litigant on the commencement of the action-though we do no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; or After the amendment came into force the respondent received notice of the prosecution already instituted against her. In 1924 she filed another petition for revocation of the sanction. The magistrate revoked, the sanction. The complainant petitioner filed this petition against this order of revocation of sanction. In dismissing this application a Full Bench of five Judges of the Madras High Court presided over by Courts Trotter C. J. referred to the decision of the Privy Council in Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd. v. Irving (supra) and quoted the passage in Lord Macnaghten's judgment as laying down the principle in clear language. At page 629 Coutts Trotter C. J., who delivered the judgment of the Full Bench, stated as follows :- "The question we have to decide is whether this was a right of entering the Superior Court and invoking its aid and interposition to redress the error of the Magistrate's Court below and therefore it seems to us that, on principle and those very weighty authorities. we ought to hold that this is not a case of procedure but it is a case of a real right to invoke the aid of a higher tribunal. We are also of opinion that those principles are really.invo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given to the Court authorised to hear appeals and the question of whether the Court is the District Court or the High Court depends on the valuation. of the suit at the time of filing the appeal. It is difficult to treat this argument as in any way distinguishing the case from that of Colonial Sugar Refining Company v. Irving ) [1905] A.C. 369., for, in both cases there was, when the suit was filed, a vested right of appeal to a particular tribunal, which is taken away by a subsequent enactment. According to the argument, when the right is taken away by a subsequent alteration in a mere fiscal enactment, the case is not the same as when the right depends on substantive law. This is untenable. It Has been held by the Privy Council that this cannot be done and we are bound by that general expression of the law and must follow it." Bala Prasad and others v. Shyam Behari Lal and others (1928) 26 A.L.J.406 which was a decision by a single judge who followed the Privy Council decision does not require any further consideration and we may pass on to Ram Singha v. Shankar Dayal (1928) I.L.R. 50 All. 965 (F.B.) which is very important. In the last mentioned case a suit for rent was filed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . While the matter was pending in that court, the law was amended so as to allow an appeal to the High Court. Their Lordships of the Privy Council held that the new Act could not deprive the party of his right to appeal to the Privy Council. Lord Macnaghten remarked at page 372: ' To deprive a suitor in a pending action of an appeal to a superior tribunal which belonged to him as of right is a very different thing from regulating procedure'." "That principle was reaffirmed by their Lordships it the case of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Income Tax Commissioner[1927] I.L.R. 9 Lah. 284. The principle has been followed by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of Daivanayaga Reddiar v. Renukamba, Ammal [1927] I.L.R. 50 Mad. 857. Dalal J. has taken the same view in the case of Bala Prasad v. Shyam Behari Lal [1928] 26 A.L.J. 406. " The Full Bench answered the question as follows: " Our answer to the reference is that the right to appeal to the court of the District Judge was governed by the law prevailing at the date of the institution of the suit, and not by the law that prevailed at the date of its decision, or at the date of the filing of the appeal." It will ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on January 14, 1928. The amended Letters Patent imposed a condition that a further appeal would lie only " where the judge who passed the judgment declares that the case is a fit one for appeal." It is well-known that this amendment was made in order to reduce the number of Letters Patent Appeals from the judgments of single judges which had assumed alarming proportions in every High Court. After the Letters Patent were amended the second appeal was dismissed by the single judge on April 4, 1928. The learned single judge declined to grant leave under the amended Letters Patent. On 30, 1928, the appellant filed an appeal on the strength of el. 15 of the Letters Patent as it stood before the amendment and obtained a rule calling upon the respondent to show cause why his appeal should not be accepted and registered without the leave of the single judge. The contention of the appellant was that the amended clause could not be applied to his appeal, for to do so would be to apply, it retrospectively and to impair and, indeed, to defeat his substantive right which was in' existence prior to the date of the amendment:. The appellant claimed that on October 7, 1920, when the suit was filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed, I can see no intermediate point at which to resist the conclusion that. the right arises at the date of the suit. It does not arise as regards Court B alone, when the suit is instituted in Court A and as regards Court C when the first appeal is lodged before Court B. A " present right of Appear " (cf. section 154 of the Code of Civil Procedure) is a different matter. The principle must, I think, involve that an admixture of different systems is not to be applied to a single case. It is quite true that the suitor cannot enter Court C without going through Court B, but neither can he enter Court B till Court A has given its decision. The right must be a right to take the matter to Court C in due course of the existing law." Further down the Special. Bench posed before them a question : "Whether it is any necessary part of the intendment of the Letters Patent that they should operate upon appeals arising out of suits instituted before 14th January, 1928, when such appeals were heard after that date ?" In spite of the wide language of the amended cl. 15 of the Letters Patent, namely, that an appeal shall lie from the judgment of single judge only where the judge who passed the jud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a dead letter for many years to come and repelled it in the following sentence: " The result is regrettable, because it makes the amended Letters Patent, which were doubtless brought into being to relieve the heavy burden of Second Appeals, which in this Court have now reached the startling figure of 5,000 cases, unable to effect any substantial relief to us for five years." For the moment we pass over his observation in connection with the case of Canada Cement Co. v. East Montreal (Town of) [1922] 1 A.C. 249 and will refer to it later on. The point for our present purpose is that the Full Bench did not think that the opinion expressed in that case was in conflict with the earlier decision in Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd. v. Irving (supra), which was authoritatively adopted and reconfirmed in the later case of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Income Tax Commissioner, Delhi (supra). The learned Chief Justice concluded his judgment with the following words: " We must therefore hold, however reluctantly, that the institution of the suit carries with it the implication that all appeals then in force are preserved to it through the rest of its career, unless the legislation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ind now imposed by section 174 (5), proviso. The Court was bound to admit the appeal whether appellant deposited the amount recoverable in execution of the decree or not. By requiring such deposit as a condition precedent to the admission of the appeal, a new restriction has been put on the right of appeal, the admission of which is now hedged in with a condition. There can be no doubt that the right of appeal has been affected by the new provision and in the absence of an express enactment this amendment cannot apply to proceedings pending at the date when the new amendment, came into force. It is true that the appeal was filed after the Act came into force, but that circumstance is immaterial-for the date to be looked into for this purpose is the date of the original proceeding which eventually culminated in the appeal." That decision was approved by a Bench of this Court in Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh [1953] S.C.R. 987. In that case on November 28, 1947, the appellant submitted a return to the Sales Tax Officer. At that time s. 22(1) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 provided that no appeal against the order of assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orce. Under s. 44 of that Firman a certificate of fitness was required for an appeal from a judgment of a single judge only if the judgment, decree or order sought to be appealed from was made in the exercise of Civil Appellate Jurisdiction. After the payment order had been made Pepsu Ordinance (X of 2005) was promulgated. Section 52 of the Ordinance required a certificate of fitness for appeal in all cases, including the winding up cases. On February 2,1950, an application was made in respect of the Marwari Chamber of Commerce Ltd. under s. 152 of the Civil Procedure Code for amendment of the payment order by substituting Rs. 21,805-7-3 for Rs. 24,005-7-3. On March 16, 1950, the above application was dismissed by the judge, who refused to grant the certificate of fitness. An appeal against this order refusing to amend the payment order was filed without any certificate. On May 1, 1950, that appeal was dismissed for want of the necessary certificate. An appeal was brought to this Court on certificate of fitness granted by the Pepsu High Court. In the case of Aggarwal Chamber of Commerce Ltd. the payment order was made on January 18, 1949, by the Liquidation Judge. On February 19,19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s cited above the following principles clearly emerge: (i) That 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 lis 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. In the case before us the suit was instituted on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made by them. In construing the Articles relating to the appellate jurisdiction of this Court it is well to remember the several categories of persons who were at the date of the Constitution, interested in the right of appeal from judgments, decrees or final orders of a High Court to a superior court in one way or another. There were seven categories of persons so interested, namely- (1) Those who were aggrieved by a judgment of a High Court in what was British India passed before the commencement of the Constitution in a civil proceeding arising out of a suit or proceeding instituted before the Constitution and who. had preferred an appeal from such judgment to the Federal Court or whose appeal from such judgment to the Privy Council had stood transferred to the Federal Court and whose appeal was pending in such court immediately prior to the commencement of the Constitution; (ii)Those who were aggrieved by a judgment passed by such a High Court before the commencement of the Constitution in such civil proceeding arising out of a suit or proceeding instituted.in the court of first instance before the Constitution, but in which only, an application for leave to appeal to the Fede ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the suit or proceeding to which they were parties, no matter when the judgment of the High Court was passed or was likely to be passed in future. The Constitution makers also knew that this vested right was governed by cl. 39 of the Letters Patent read with the Federal Court (Enlargement of Jurisdiction) Act, 1947 and the Abolition of Privy Council Jurisdiction Act,'1949 and ss. 109 and 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Constitution makers were also aware of the rights of persons who fell within categories (v) and (vi). With full knowledge of all. these rights the Constitution makers made such provision as they thought fit. The question is,-has the Constitution, expressly or by necessary intendment, taken away this vested right of appeal from any of these categories of persons? This leads us to examine the relevant provisions of the Constitution and other laws bearing on the question. Article 395 of the Constitution repealed the Indian Independence Act, 1947 and the Government of India Act, 1935 together with all enactments amending or supplementing the latter Act, but expressly kept alive the Abolition of Privy Council Jurisdiction Act, 1949. The repeal of the Government of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this Constitution under any existing law. Article 136 authorises this Court in its discretion to rant special leave to appeal in certain cases. Article 37 confers power of review upon this Court to review as own judgments. Provision is made for the enlargement of the jurisdiction or conferment of additional or ancillary powers under Arts. 138 to 140. Article 372 of the Constitution provides for the continuance in force of the existing laws and for their adaptation. The relevant portions of Art. 372 are as follows: 372.(1) Notwithstanding the repeal by this Constitution of the enactments referred to in article 395 but subject to the other provisions of this Constitution, all the law in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution shall continue in force therein until altered or repealed or amended by a competent Legislature or other competent authority. (2)For the purpose of bringing the provisions of any law in force in the territory of India into accord with the provisions of this Constitution, the President may by order make such adaptations and modifications of such law, whether by way of repeal or amendment, as may be necessary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acquired, accrued, or incurred under any such law, or any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred ill respect of an offence already committed against any such law. The result of the foregoing provisions 'may here be shortly summarised. The Constitution by Art. 395 repealed the Government of India Act and thereby abolished the Federal Court. It, however, continued he Abolition of Privy Council Jurisdiction Act, 1949, which directed that the Federal Court in addition to he powers conferred on it by the Federal Court (Enlargenent of Jurisdiction) Act, 1947, would have all the appelate powers exercised by the Privy Council. Though the Federal Court (Enlargement of Jurisdiction) Act, 1947, being an Act amending or supplementing the Government of India Act, 1935, was repealed, yet notwithstanding such repeal the provisions of the Act were continued in force under Art. 372 (1) subject to the other provisions of the Constitution. The Adaptation order modified ss. 109 and 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, inter alia, by raising the valuation from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 20,000, but that provision did not, by virtue of clause 20 of the Order, affect any right, privilege, obligation or liabil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Constitution which had vested in persons falling within category (iv) is to, be governed by Art. 133 or by the old law under Art. 135. In Radha Krishna v. Shridhar (supra), Nandalal v. Hira Lal I.L.R. 1950 Nag. 830, Mahant Sidha Kamal Nayan v. Bira Naik I.L.R. 1950 Cut. 663, Ramaswami v. Ramanathan I.L.R. 1951 Mad. 125, Daji Saheb v. Shankarrao I.L.R. 1952 Bom. 906, Mt. Murtu v. Paras Ram A.I.R. 1952 Him. 14 and Bhagwantrao v. Viswasrao I.L.R. 1953 Nag. 822, it has been held that Art. 133 of the Constitution is not retrospective and that the vested right of appeal is governed by the conditions laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure which were in force previous to the adaptation there. of and this Court was by Art. 135 substituted for the Federal Court, and invested with jurisdiction to entertain the appeals under that article. In Daji Saheb v. Shankarrao (supra) the suit, the value of which was between Rs. 11,000 and Rs. 13,000, was dismissed by the trial court on December 20, 1946, and the High Court reversed the decree of the trial court and passed the decree in favour of the plaintiff on November 8, 1949. The Bombay High Court having granted a certificate of fitness, the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing this construction was mitigated by conferment of discretionary power on this Court to grant special leave under Art. 136. On this construction litigants, who come within categories (iii) and (iv) will all have to depend upon the discretionary powers of this Court to grant special leave under Art. 136. This will be a poor consolation to those litigants, for they will have no appeal as a matter of right, which they formerly possessed under the Code of Civil Procedure but will have to seek a favour entirely dependent on, the discretion of this Court. We do not think any other High Court has gone to this length and, indeed, this decision has been expressly dissented from in Bhagwantrao v. Viswasrao (supra) and we are not prepared to accept that Madras decision as correct. In Veeranna v. China Venkanna I.L.R. 1953 Mad. 1079 it has been held by a Full Bench of three judges of the Madras High Court that if the judgment is delivered in a civil proceeding of a High Court -after the commencement of the Constitution then no matter whether the civil proceeding was instituted before or after the commencement of the Constitution, Art. 133(1) would apply directly and if that article applied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itution, it was a right to finally appeal to the Privy Council. But from 1st February, 1948, such a right was expressly abolished. There was no doubt no abolition of a Court as such, but substantially that was the result. From that day the Privy Council ceased to be a Court of Appeal from the Indian High Courts. Such right as was vested in the parties to the suit to appealto the Privy Council, therefore, came to an end on that day. Instead, the parties may be said to have obtained an alternative right of appeal to the Federal Court But what must not be overlooked is that this is not because the parties had a vested right, but because the Federal Court (Enlargement of Jurisdiction) Act specially provided for the substitution of the final appellate forum (vide section 3 of that Act)." Again at page 1087 it was said:- "it follows, therefore, that the utmost that can be said in favour of the petitioner is that immediately before the coming into force of the Constitution the existing law conferred a right on parties in this case to appeal to the Federal Court. When this Court was abolished by the coming into force of the Constitution the question is, were any rights substituted for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivy Council was incompetent. Three points were urged before the Judicial Committee. The first was that as the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court was derived from the Cities' and Towns' Act, 1909, all right of appeal must be found in that Act and as no right of appeal was given by that Act no appeal lay. This point was rejected by the Judicial Committee on the ground that the power that was given to take proceedings to the Circuit Court under art. 5755 enabled these proceedings to be taken as part of the ordinary business of the court and the right of appeal that existed from the judgment given by that court was applicable to such proceeding. The second point urged was that the Circuit Court was governed by the Civil Procedure Code and so it had to be ascertained if that Code gave any appeal. Reference was made to the different sections of the Code and it was contended that no such right of appeal had been given by those sections. The Judicial Committee upheld this point. The last point which was raised is material for our purpose. That was that by the Quebec Statute 10 Geo. 5 c. 79 the whole of the sections of this Code of Civil Procedure including those dealing with the Circuit Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of appeal had been taken away expressly or by necessary intendment rather than within the second exception where the court to which the appeal lay had been abolished simpliciter. This case, therefore, can give no support to the conclusion of the Full Bench. Apart from what, with respect, appears to us to be an erroneous reading of that Canadian case, the judgment of this Madras Full Bench seems to have been founded on the idea that the Constitution simply brought about an abolition of the Federal Court simpliciter and consequently the old vested right of appeal thereto ceased to exist and that as no new right of appeal was given to the new court, i.e., the Supreme Court, no appeal lay to it. If this reasoning of the Madras High Court were correct then with respect to the case of Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd. v. Irving (supra), it could be said, adapting the language used in the Madras Full Bench case and quoted above, that if any right was vested in the parties to the suit on the day of its institution in the court of first instance it was a right of final appeal only to the Privy Council, that though strictly speaking there was no abolition of the Privy Council as such, yet su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal from judgments passed after the Constitution if the conditions are not satisfied, no matter when the proceedings had been instituted in the court of first instance. Article 133 only speaks of any judgment, decree or final order of a high Court. It does not say judgment, decree or final order passed after the Constitution. Therefore, when an application for leave to appeal from a judgment, decree or final order of a High Court is made after the Constitution then, at the date of the application, surely the judgment, decree or final order passed before the Constitution can also , be described literally and correctly as a judgment, decree or final order of a High Court. But it is said at once that the Constitution is prospective and, therefore, the judgment, decree or final order contemplated therein can only be a judgment, decree or final order passed after the Constitution. But if by reason of the theory that the Constitution is prospective we are to read the words "passed after the Commencement of the Constitution" after. the words " judgment, decree or final order ", can there be any cogent reason why we may not also read the words " arising out of a suit or proceeding institut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o go from court to court in appeal is the right which vests at the date of the institution of the proceedings in the court of the first instance. It is true, as pointed out by Rankin C.J. that the litigant cannot go from Court A to Court B or from Court B to Court C unless and until an adverse order actually is made but the right to go up to Court C vests, not at the date of the adverse judgment or the date of the filing of the appeal but, at the date of the institution of the original proceedings. If this is, as we apprehend it is, -the correct view. then to construe Art. 133 as covering all judgments, decrees and final orders made after the Constitution irrespective of the date of the initiation of the proceedings in the original court will be to take away or impair the vested right of appeal from a judgment concerning property or subject-matter of the value of Rs. 10,000 but below Rs. 20,000 which had accrued to the aggrieved party long before the commencement of the Constitution. Such a construction plainly and surely amounts to giving a retroactive operation to Art. 133, for so construed the article will certainly destroy the right which was vested prior to the Constitution. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lt with the cases relating to the amended cl. 15 of the Letters Patent were not deterred by any such feeling of oppression from giving effect to the principle which undoubtedly was laid down by the Privy Council in Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd. v. Irving (supra). The learned judges of this later Full Bench of the Madras High Court may also have been oppressed by the feeling that if Art. 133 were not construed as covering all judgments, decrees or final orders of a High Court made after the date of the Constitution in a civil proceeding irrespective of whether such proceeding arose out of a suit or other proceeding instituted before or after that date it will be to deny a right of appeal to a litigant whose suit had been filed in a High Court of a princely State long before the Constitution came into force and in which an adverse order was made against him by the High Court of the corresponding Part B State and he will be deprived of a right of further appeal to this Court for the case will not fall within Art. 135 either. This argument may be attractive at first but a little reflection will show that there is no substance in it. If such a litigant had before the Constitution ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not apply to a case in which the judgment. decree or final order of the High Court was made before the Constitution. This concession can only be explained on the footing that having been passed before the commencement of the Constitution such judgment, decree or final order did not comply with the requirements of Art. 133, which, being prospective, contemplated a judgment, decree or final order of the High Court passed after the date of the Constitution and that as Art. 133 did not apply the vested right of appeal was governed by Art. 135. Then, by a parity of reasoning why can it not be said that Art. 133 does not apply to a judgment, decree or final order in a civil proceeding arising out of a suit or proceeding instituted in the court of first instance before the date of the Constitution, where the value of the subject-matter of the suit and the appeal was above Rs. 10,000 but below Rs. 20,000, because such a judgment, decree or final order did not satisfy the conditions of Art. 133 as to valuation?' If non-compliance with one requirement of Art. 133, viz., the passing of the judgment after the date of the Constitution takes out of that article a judgment, decree or final or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... way. This argument is unsound and here the observations of Rankin C.J. in the Special Bench case of Calcutta referred to above become apposite, namely, that the provision which takes away jurisdiction is itself subject to the implied saving of the litigant's right. Clause 20 'will be meaningless if Art. 133 is also not read in a restricted sense. This restricted% construction of Art. 133 will not be open to the objection that it deprives the aggrieved litigant who had filed his suit or proceeding in a princely State before the Constitution but against whom an adverse judgment, decree or final order has been made by the High Court of the corresponding Part.B State for the Privy Council to which that litigant had the right to go had been abolished. Such a litigant had no vested right and therefore he can come under Art. 133 if the conditions thereof are satisfied. As against this construction it is said that it will not help a litigant who had filed his suit before the Constitution but against whom an adverse order is made after the Constitution, for having on this construction a vested right of appeal he will be outside the purview of Art. 133 and he can only exercise his vested ri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in relation to a judgment, decree or final order to be passed by the High Court after the Constitution but with respect to which a right of appeal had vested in the parties before the commencement of the Constitution must be 'held to have been " exercisable " by the Federal Court immediately before the commencement of the Constitution. Such jurisdiction and powers were "exercisable " in the sense that they could be exercised as soon as a judgment, decree or final order was passed provided that with respect to it a litigant had already acquired a vested right of appeal. There is no reason why the operation of Art. 135 should be limited to cases where the right of appeal was not a mere potentiality but had actually arisen in a concrete form immediately before the commencement of the Constitution as was suggested by Chakravartti C. J. in Prabirendra Mohan v. Berhampore Bank Ltd. (supra). In our opinion Veeranna v. Chinna Venkanna (supra) and the cases following it were not correctly decided. Our attention has been drawn to the case of Nathoo Lal v. Durga Prasad [1955] 1 S.C.R. 51 where an objection was raised as to the maintainability of that appeal on the ground that according to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Jaipur High Court to the Federal Court or to this Court. That being the position it *as a judgment with respect to which nobody had any vested right of appeal and, therefore, an appeal lay to this Court under Art. 133 as construed above. lt did not matter in that case whether the appeal was maintainable under Art. 133 or Art. 135 and the question that we are considering in the present appeal does not appear to have been urged by learned counsel or discussed by the court in that case and the cryptic observation quoted above cannot be taken as a considered and final expression of opinion that whenever a judgment, decree or final order is passed after the date of the Constitution it must come within Art. 133 no matter whether the proceedings were instituted before or after that date,. For reasons stated above we think that the suit, out of which this application arises, having been instituted before the date of the Constitution the parties thereto had, from the date of the institution of the suit, a vested right of appeal upon terms and conditions then in force and the judgment sought to be appealed from being a judgment of reversal and the value of the subject matter being above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Dajee Sahib v. Sankar Rao I.L.R. 1952 Bom. 906., by the Nagpur High Court in Bhagawantrao v. Viswasa Rao I.L.R. 1953 Nag. 822 and by the Patna High Court in N. P. Sukul v. R. K. Misra [1933] I.L.R. 32 Patna 400. We have had the benefit of a full and learned argument on the question, and having carefully reconsidered the matter, I have come to the conclusion that the view taken by the majority of the High Courts is correct. The judgment against which the present appeal is sought to be preferred was pronounced on February 10, 1955. The Constitution of India came into force on January 26, 1950, and Arts. 131 to 140 therein define the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, original and appellate. It being settled law that an appeal does not lie unless expressly given by the statute, the sole point for determination is whether the present appeal is authorised by any of those Articles. The two Articles which bear on the question are Arts. 133 and 135. According to the petitioner, it is Art. 135 that applies, and he has a right to appeal to this Court thereunder. Article 135 is as follows: " Until Parliament by law otherwise provides, the Supreme Court shall also have jurisdiction and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstitution, and as the judgment in this case was pronounced on February 10, 1955, the right of appeal against it must be determined in accordance with Art. 133, and as the valuation of the suit was only Rs. 11,400, the present appeal would be incompetent, as the requirements of Art. 133(1) (a) are not satisfied. The answer of the petitioner to this contention might thus be stated: Under the law as it stood on April 22, 1949, when he filed the suit he had vested in him a right of appeal to the High Court and from the High Court to the Federal Court. That right has not been taken away by the Constitution expressly or by necessary implication, and the Articles of the Constitution should therefore be so interpreted. as to give effect to it. That requires that the operation of Art. 133 should be limited to judgments and decrees passed in civil proceedings instituted after the Constitution. If that Article is so interpreted, judgments passed in suits instituted before, though delivered after the Constitution, will fall outside its purview. And that will let in Art. 135. As this is the sole ground for construing the language of Art. 133, which is wide and unqualified, in a restricted se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifferent thing from regulating procedure. In principle, their Lordships see no difference between abolishing an appeal altogether and transferring the appeal to a new tribunal. In either case there is an interference with existing rights contrary to the well-known general principle that statutes are not to be held to act retrospectively unless a clear intention to that effect is manifested." It is on this decision that the entire argument in support of the petition is founded. But is it correct ? It may look a daring and almost fatuous adventure to canvass the correctness of the decision in Colonial Sugar Refining Company v. Irving (supra), especially when it has been followed by Courts in this country for well nigh half a century. But with all the respect which I have for the decision of a tribunal so august as the Privy Council and of a Judge so eminent as Lord Macnaghten, I am of opinion that the decision in question cannot be supported on principle, that it is not warranted by the authorities, and cannot, therefore, be followed. Considering the question on principle, an appeal is a proceeding by which the correctness of the decision of an inferior court is challenged before a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of tenement, stated: " This extendeth to alienations made after the statute and not before; for it is a rule of law of Parliament that regularly nova constitutio futuris forman imponere debet, non praeteritis" (a new statute regulates future conduct and not past(1)). From this passage, one may say that legislation does not affect a right of appeal, which has accrued. But it throws no light on the question when that right accrues, whether at the commencement of the action or on the pronouncement of the decision. In Towler v. Chatterton (1829) 6 Bing. 253; 31 R.R., 411, the suit was to recover an oral loan, and the question was whether it was hit by Lord Tenterdon's Act, which required that, to take the case out of the operation of the statute of limitation, the debt should be in writing. That Act was passed after the debt was contracted but before the action was brought thereon. It was held that having regard. to the terms of the Act, it must be held to be retrospective, and that the action was not maintainable. The decision in The Ydun (1899) P.D. 236 is similar to the one in Towler v. Chatterton (supra). The plaintiffs sued for damages for the grounding of their vessel on Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it was held that the right to prove a debt was a substantive one, and was not affected by the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act, which came into force after such proof. It may be taken on these authorities that a right of appeal is a substantive right and not a mere matter of procedure, and that a legislation subsequent to the accrual of such a right must not be construed as taking it away, unless it does so expressly or by necessary implication. But the question still remains when that right accrues or vests; and that did not arise for determination in the authorities cited above, and indeed, does not appear to have been the subjectmatter of any pronouncement prior to Colonial Sugar Refining Company v. Irving (supra), and the decision therein that a right of appeal vests when the action is commenced would accordingly appear to be a deduction made from the character of the right as a substantive one. But is it a right deduction to make ? It is one thing to say that right of appeal is a substantive right, and quite a different thing to hold that it vests at the date of the commencement of the proceedings. It would be perfectly logical to hold that the right of appeal is a substanti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of decisions interpreting the law in a particular way and rights to property have been acquired and contractual relations entered into on the basis of those decisions. It cannot properly be invoked when the question is, when on the construction of a statute a right to appeal vests in a suitor. I 'should add that the petitioner did not seriously contend that the principle of stare decisis would apply to the decision of such a question. I must now refer to the decision of this Court in Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others [1953] S.C.R. 987, where the decision in Colonial Sugar Refining, Company v. Irving (supra) was followed. But the, it was assumed that the decision in Colonial Sugar Refining Company v. Irving (supra) was correct, and the precise point now under consideration was neither raised nor decided. The question in its present form was raised in Indira Sohanlal v. Custodian of Evacuee Property, Delhi and others [1955] 2 S.C.R. 1117, but the point was left open. Vide observations at page 1133. The present question must, therefore, be taken as not concluded by any authority of this Court. In jurisdictions not dominated by the Privy Counc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt thereto could impair or take away that right, unless it did so expressly or by necessary intendment. Giving full effect to that decision, the petitioner can only claim that when he instituted the suit in the Sub Court, Bapatla on April 22, 1949, he had on that date a vested right to file an appeal against any decision which might be given in that suit to the High Court of Madras, which was the Court to which an appeal lay from the Bapatla Sub Court on that date. That right is not in dispute. -The petitioner did file an appeal to the High Court of Madras, and that was heard and decided by the Andhra High Court, to which the appeal was transfer- red. What the petitioner now claims is something more. He contends that not only had he on April 22, 1949, a vested right, of appeal to the High Court of Madras from a judgment which might be delivered in his suit in the Bapatla Sub Court, but that he had also vested in him on that date a further right to prefer an "appeal to the Federal Court against the judgment which might be delivered by the Madras High Court in an appeal which might be preferred to that Court against the decision of the Bapatla Sub Court. That is to say, what vested i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epted., I can see no intermediate point at which to resist the conclusion that the right arises at the date of the suit., It does not arise as regards Court B alone when the suit is instituted in Court A and as regards Court C when the first appeal is lodged before Court B...... It is quite true that the suitor cannot enter Court C without going through Court B, but neither can he enter Court B till Court A has given its decision. The right must be a right to take the matter to Court C in due course of the existing law." It will be noticed that the two propositions of law on which the judgment is based are, first, that a suitor in Court A should be held to have a right of appeal to Court B even before Court A has given its decision,, as to which the learned Judge simply observes that the question was concluded by the decision of the Privy Council in Colonial Sugar Refining Company v. Irving (supra), and second, that if a suit or can have a vested right of appeal to Court B before Court A where his action is pending gives its decision, why not he also have a right vested in him at the same time to appeal to Court C even before an appeal is instituted in -Court B. That conclusion app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t B, from Court B to Court C and from Court C to Court D are distinct proceedings independent of one another. How then can the right of appeal from one Court to another be held to comprise within it the right of appeal from that Court to a, third Court? Section 96, Code of Civil Procedure, provides for an appeal from a decree passed by the trial court, and under that provision the decision in a suit instituted in the court of a District Munsif will be open to appeal to the, District Court.' Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure,' provides for further - appeal from the judgment of the District Court to the High Court; but this right of second appeal is much more limited than that given under section 96. It lies only when there is a question of law, and it is also subject in certain cases, to pecuniary limitations. Thus, the rights of appeal conferred by ss. 96 and 100, Code of Civil Procedure, are different in their quality and contents. Then again, under so. 109 and 110, Code of Civil Procedure, a further appeal is provided against the decision of the High Court to this Court subject again to certain conditions. This is 'a right different in. its character from the right of appeal c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relied on by counsel for appellant in support of his contention that the principle of s. 6 of the General Clauses Act was applicable in the construction of the Letters Patent. The first of these decisions is Ratanchand Shrichand v. Hammantray Shivbakas (1860) 6 Bom. H.C. R. 166. There, the facts were that 'a suit for Rs. 23,319 was instituted in the court of the Principal Sadar Amin of Dhulia, and that was substantially decreed on January 29, 1869. On March 19, 1869, the Bombay Civil Courts Act came into force, and under that Act appeals in suits exceeding Rs. 5,000 lay to the High Court of Bombay. But under the law as it stood prior to that date, the appeal against the judgment of the Principal Sadar Amin would have lain to the District Court. The point for decision was whether an appeal against the decree, dated January 29, 1869, lay to the District Court or to the High Court. The learned Judges held that the proper forum to which the appeal lay was the District Court. The decision was based on s. 6 of the General Clauses Act, which enacted that " the repeal of any statute shall not: affect any proceedings commenced before the repealing Act shall have come into operation." It wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Are we to interpret this remark as meaning that under the law, suit, appeal, and second appeal all constitute but one proceeding ? The observation itself merely speaks of them as steps in a series of proceedings. That is to say, they are different proceedings, but are directed to a common purpose. And are we to build on this observation, reading it along with the decision in- Colonial Sugar Refining Company v. Irving (supra) the theory that when a right to file an appeal arises, it comprehends a right to file the whole series of appeals under the law ? That will be putting the observation to a use which could not have been contemplated. On the other hand, there are the following observations at page 215 in the same judgment, which are more germane to the present discussion: "When judicial enquiry has reached its intended close in an adjudication, requiring thenceforward in theory only a ministerial or coercive exercise of authority to give it practical effect, the party who strives by an appeal to unsettle again the legal relation, which in itself has by the act of the Court become settled may fairly be regarded as instituting a new proceeding Such has been the view of some eminen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n established doctrine of our jurisprudence. For the reasons already given, that theory cannot be accepted as sound. The decisions in Sadar Ali v. Dalimuddin (supra), and Vasudeva Samiar In re (supra) which expressed that theory, must be held to be erroneous, and the contention of the petitioner based on those authorities that he acquired on April 22,,1949, when he instituted the suit in the Bapatla Sub Court, a vested right of appeal to the Federal Court under the then law must be rejected. But that does not exhaust all the hurdles which the petitioner has to cross before he. can reach the Con- stitution as the holder of a vested right, seeking protection for the same therein. Assuming that the petitioner had, as decided in Sadar Ali v. Dalimuddin (supra), a right of appeal to the Federal Court before the Constitution came into force, did it survive there. after so as to be capable of being exercised there. under? The Federal Court was established by the Government of India Act, 1935, and when that Act was repealed by the Constitution, the Court established under it was also abolished. When a Court in which an appeal is allowed itself ceases to exist, the right of appeal ,to that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r that there was no question of abolition of Court in Canada Cement Co. v. East Montreal (Town of) (supra), and that the decision in Veeranna v. Chinna Venkanna (supra) was mistaken in thinking that there was, is justified. It is true that the judgment in Canada Cement Co' v. East Montreal (Town of) (supra) does not mention that Court. B (Court of Review) was abolished. But nothing is mentioned in the judgment as to what happened to that Court. It is probable that it was abolished because Court B was under the Code of Civil Procedure merely a Court of under the and all the provisions in that Code providing for appeals from Court A to Court B had been repealed, and, instead, s. 42 provided that Court C. was to hear all the appeals which were. maintainable under the law., If there was no jurisdiction left in Court B to hear appeals, then it must have been abolished, it being only a Court of Review. This is bow it was understood by Coutts Trotter C.J. in Vasudeva Samitia). In re (supra), wherein It(, summarised the effect of the decision thus:- By 10 George V, Chap. 79 (Quebec), the right of appeal was transferred from the abolished Court to the Appellate Side of the Court of King's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rished with that Court, and there was accordingly nothing on which Cl. 20 could operate, nothing which could be kept alive by it. It was argued that this Court does the work which previously was done by the Federal Court, and must, in consequence, be regarded as its successor, and that would attract the operation of that clause. This contention is clearly untenable. This Court was established by the Constitution, and is a new Court deriving its jurisdiction and powers under the Constitution. Reference might, in this connection, be made to the following observation of Patanjali Sastri J. in State of Seraikella and other8 V. Union of India and another [1951] S.C.R. 474, 497:- " The Federal Court, in which the suits were pending, and which had exclusive jurisdiction to deal with them, was abolished and a -new Court, the Supreme Court of India, was created. with original jurisdiction strictly limited to disputes relating to legal rights between States recognised as such under the Constitution." Reliance was placed by the petitioner on Art. 374(2) under which all proceedings pending in the Federal Court at the commencement of the Constitution stand removed to the Supreme Court, but th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been omitted by mistake or accident. But where the language of the enactment is clear and its meaning unmistakable, it is not permissible to read into it a new provision, which will have the effect of enlarging or abridging its connotation. Vide Halsbury's Laws of England, Hailsham Edition, Volume 31, pages 497 and 498, para 635. Applying, these principles, the language of Art. 133 is crystal clear and unambiguous. Full effect can be given to it without reading into it any words which are not there, and according to all settled canons of construction, therefore, it will not be permissible to read into the Article words such as "instituted after the coming into force of the Constitution." The objection to such a course is all the greater, when it is remembered that it is a Constitution that we are interpreting. There is, on the other hand, good reason why the addition in question should not be made. Article 133 is the provision of law under which appeals can be preferred under the Constitution from judgments, decrees and final orders of the High Courts in the territory of India. It is under this provision that appeals against judgments, decrees and final orders of High Courts in Pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt, and that was given in an appeal against a decree passed in a suit. It therefore directly falls within the purview of Art. 133, and whether it satisfies the requirements laid down therein or not, does not destroy its character as a matter to which the provisions of that Article apply. If so, Art. 135 is inapplicable. There is another reason why we should not accede to the contention of the petitioner that an appeal against a judgment or decree which would fall within the purview of Art. 133 should be held to go out of it when it does not satisfy the requirements, contained, therein as to valuation. I Suppose that a judgment is passed after the Constitution, by a High Court in a Part B State in a suit commenced before the Constitution, the value of which is over Rs. 10,000 but less than Rs. 20,000. No appeal against it would be competent under Art. 133 for want of requisite valuation nor under Art. 135, because that relates to matters in respect of which the Federal Court could have exercised jurisdiction, and that Court had never jurisdiction over High Courts in Part B States. Thus, after the Constitution, judgments in the same class of suits, namely, suits' whose valuation is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would have been easier than to say so, by enacting a proviso to that effect to Art. 133(1), which deals with that category of appeals, and not leave it to be gathered by a process of involved and debatable ratiocination. In this view, even if there be a right of appeal vested in the petitioner prior to the Constitution as contended for by him, it Must be held to have been taken away by necessary implication by Art. 133. It has been uniformly held in America that when a right of appeal is given conditioned on the subjectmatter being of a certain valuation, that provision must be interpreted as negativing a right of appeal where that condition is not satisfied. In Durousseau v. United States 3 L. Edn. 232 at 234-235 ; 6 Cranch 307., dealing with a provision providing for an appeal when the subject-matter exceeded 2,000 dollars, Marshall C.J. observed: "... the Court implies a legislative exception from its constitutional appellate power in the legislative affirmative description of those powers. Thus, a writ of error lies to the judgment of a Circuit Court, where the matter in controversy exceeds the value of 2,000 dollars. There is no express declaration that it will not lie where t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not competent under s. 64, the Privy Council observed: "Now this appeal had not been brought when the statute was passed, although, the proceedings before the Circuit Court had been instituted. Consequently the statutes giving whatever right of appeal may have existed were replaced by sections which gave none, and s. 64 of the Act which provided that matters within the competence of the Court of Review should be subject to the Court of King's Bench, must be regarded as qualified by the provision that the powers of the Court of Review with regard to the Circuit Court had been taken away, and consequently to that extent the statute I had otherwise provided"'. According to the Privy Council, therefore, the replacing of the provision of the Civil Procedure Code, which gave a right of appeal, by provisions which gave none was other provision, which barred resort to s. 64. On the same reasoning, it must be held that the applicability of Art. 135 is barred, by the provisions of the Constitution abolishing the Federal Court, replacing the provisions relating to appeal to that Court by Art. 133, and by adapting ss. 109 and 110 of the Civil Procedure Code on the terms of that Article. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... restrict the plain meaning of the enactment: and thirdly because it will lead to the anomalous result that there will be no right of appeal against judgments, decrees and final orders made after the Constitution in civil proceedings instituted prior thereto in the Courts of Part B States, whatever their valuation. The contention of the petitioner that appeals against judgments, decrees or final orders which would otherwise fall within the ambit of Art. 133 must be held to fall outside that Article for the reason that they have not the requisite valuation prescribed therein, and that, in consequence, they will be governed by Art. 135, is untenable, firstly because Art. 133 must be construed as exhaustive of the law in respect of appeals when they are directed against judgments,- decrees or final orders in civil proceedings; secondly because, by implication that Article must be interpreted as negativinag any appeal which does not satisfy the requirements as to valuation prescribed therein; and thirdly because, that would result in this discrimination that while appeals will be competent against judgments, decrees or final orders made in proceedings instituted before the Constitution ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
