AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
There is a preliminary objection to the maintainability of these appeals, based upon the fact that when the applications were filed in 1938 no right
of appeal existed. This objection is supported by the Full Bench Judgment in Vasudeva Samiar, In re (1928) 56 M.L.J. 369 : ILR 52 Mad. 361. ,
That was no doubt a case in which during the pendency of certain proceedings a right of appeal was taken away; but in our opinion there is no
logical distinction between a right of appeal and a right to a final judgment without an appeal. Both are equally vested rights. We hold accordingly
that the principles of Vasudeva Samiar, In re (1928) 56 M.L.J. 369 : ILR 52 Mad. 361. , applies to this case, and we see nothing in the rule
establishing the right of appeal that ""expressly or by necessary intendment"" gives it retrospective effect.
We do not think the rulings cited by the learned Government Pleader are of any assistance to him. In Guruswami Pillai and Another Vs.
Virabhadra Tavulkaran and Another, . great stress is laid by the learned Judges on the fact that the change there dealt with is a change only in
procedure which does not take away a right of appeal. K. C. Mukerjee v. Musammat Ram Ratan Kuer (1935) 70 M.L.J. 105 : L.R. 63 IndAp
47 : ILR 15 Pat. 268 (P.C.). and Municipal Council of Sydney v. Troy AIR 1928 P.C. 128. are decisions which depend upon the interpretation of
particular sections in particular statutes. We uphold the preliminary objection and rule that these appeals do not lie.
The learned Government Pleader then asks us to treat them as revision petitions but we see no indication of any such miscarriage of justice being
involved in the alleged errors in the learned District Judge''s procedure as would justify our interference.
The appeals are dismissed with costs of the contesting respondents.