https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169678 Article 133(1) governed an application for leave to appeal from a High Court judgment delivered after the Constitution, because the constitutional provision directly applied to the judgment sought to be appealed from and imposed the fresh valuation requirement for civil appeals. Article 135 could not be invoked to preserve an earlier appellate right merely because the suit was instituted before the Constitution or because a pre-existing right of appeal had once existed; that article operates only where Articles 133 and 134 do not apply. The Court further indicated that prior Federal Court jurisdiction required a final judgment, decree or order made before the Constitution. The petitioners therefore could not avoid the constitutional valuation requirement. en-us Fri, 07 Nov 1952 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Apr 2015 11:15:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169678 Article 133(1) governed an application for leave to appeal from a High Court judgment delivered after the Constitution, because the constitutional provision directly applied to the judgment sought to be appealed from and imposed the fresh valuation requirement for civil appeals. Article 135 could not be invoked to preserve an earlier appellate right merely because the suit was instituted before the Constitution or because a pre-existing right of appeal had once existed; that article operates only where Articles 133 and 134 do not apply. The Court further indicated that prior Federal Court jurisdiction required a final judgment, decree or order made before the Constitution. The petitioners therefore could not avoid the constitutional valuation requirement. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 07 Nov 1952 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169678