Bench strength in appeal is procedural, not vested: single-Judge disposal upheld and further appeal denied.

The right of appeal is a vested substantive right, but the strength of the Bench hearing the appeal is a matter of procedure. The earlier High Court Act regulated jurisdiction and business without creating a substantive right to a two-Judge hearing, and the later Kerala High Court Act validly enlarged the jurisdiction of a single Judge. No vested right existed to insist on a Division Bench hearing or to claim a further appeal under Article 133 on that basis, so the single-Judge disposal was upheld and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal which, under the law in force when the suit and appeals were instituted, would have been heard by a Division Bench, could validly be heard and disposed of by a single Judge after the enactment of the Kerala High Court Act, and whether the appellant retained any vested right to insist on a Division Bench hearing or on further appeal under Article 133 of the Constitution.

Analysis: The governing principle applied was that the right of appeal is a vested substantive right, but the number of Judges by whom an appeal is heard is a matter of procedure. The Travancore-Cochin High Court Act regulated the business and jurisdiction of the High Court and did not confer any substantive right to have an appeal heard by two Judges. The later Kerala High Court Act validly enlarged the jurisdiction of a single Judge, and no party had a vested right to insist on a particular strength of Bench. Once the appeal was one which could be heard by a single Judge, no right to a further appeal under Article 133 could be claimed on the footing that a Division Bench hearing was mandatory.

Conclusion: The contention that the appeal had to be heard by a Division Bench and that the appellant had a vested right to a further appeal failed. The appeal was rightly heard by a single Judge, and the challenge to its maintainability was rejected.

---