Appeal Dismissed: Suit Transfer under U.P. Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972

The High Court dismissed the appeal in a case involving the transfer of suits under the U. P. Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972. The Court found the second appeal incompetent under Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure due to the suit's small causes nature, despite the law's conversion provision. The appellant's request to convert the appeal into a civil revision was denied, emphasizing the appellant's knowledge of the legal changes. The Court also ruled that the authorities cited were irrelevant to the appeal's maintainability, ultimately dismissing the appeal with each party bearing their own costs.

---

---

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the court regarding the transfer of suits under the U. P. Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972.
2. Competency of a second appeal in cases of small causes under Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. Discretion of the court to convert a second appeal into a civil revision.
4. Relevance of authorities in determining the maintainability of an appeal.

Analysis:
1. The case involved an appeal arising from a suit for ejectment and arrears of repairs and damages, initially filed in the court of Munsif, Allahabad. The U. P. Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972, came into force during the proceedings, converting such suits into small causes. Despite the provision for transfer to the court of small causes, the trial continued in the Munsif court, resulting in a decree in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant appealed, challenging the trial court's jurisdiction. The District Judge upheld the decree, leading to a second appeal in the High Court.

2. The High Court addressed the issue of the competency of the second appeal under Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which prohibits second appeals in suits of small causes when the subject matter's value does not exceed a specified limit. The Court noted that the suit, though triable by the Small Cause Court under the Amending Act, retained its small causes nature. Consequently, the provision under Section 102 applied, rendering the second appeal incompetent. The Court dismissed the appeal on this ground.

3. The appellant requested to convert the second appeal into a civil revision, citing discretion. However, the Court found that the appellant failed to inform the trial court about the loss of jurisdiction due to the new law, leading to a voluntary trial in the regular court. Considering the detailed procedure followed and the opportunity for a second hearing in the lower appellate court, the Court declined the conversion request, emphasizing the appellant's awareness of the legal changes.

4. Lastly, the Court addressed the relevance of authorities cited by the appellant, concluding that they did not impact the appeal's maintainability. After considering all arguments and submissions, the Court dismissed the appeal as incompetent, with each party bearing their own costs.

---