ORDER
Immaneni Panduranga Rao, J.
1. This revision is filed by the 2nd defendant in O.S.No. 208 of 1990 on the file of Sub-Court, Rajahmundry. The suit filed by the 1st respondent herein was dismissed for default on 1-2-1991. Thereupon he filed I.A.No. 252/91 under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. for restoration of the suit. The suit was restored on 20-6-91 on conditions. The review petition filed by the 1st respondent herein was dismissed.
2. He filed C.M.A. No. 52/91 on the file of the court of I Additional District Judge., Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. The learned Addl. District Judge holding that the condition with regard to the deposit of the entire suit costs is onerous and unjustified, has set side that condition. He, therefore, directed the restoration of the suit on condition of the plaintiff paying Rs. 100/- towards costs to the defendants.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the decision of this court in K. Hara Gopal v. K. Venkata Ratna Kumar, (D.B.), argued that the value of the suit-as originally instituted being Rs.40,000/-, the learned Addl. District Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the C.M.A. No. 52/91 and therefore, his decision in modifying the conditions imposed by the trial court for restoring the suit is liable to be set aside.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the decision of the supreme Court in Chandrika v. Bhaiyalal, and contended that where the court is inherently lacking in jurisdiction the plea as to jurisdiction may be raised at any stage, even if it was not raised in trial court on the ground that the decree is a nullity.
5. It is, no doubt, true it is held by the Division Bench in K. Hara Gopal v. K. Venkata Ratna Kumar (1 supra), that the right of appeal to a particular forum is a substantiative right and is not lost by alteration in law and that appeal filed in the District Court against the judgment and decree in the suit exceeding the value of Rs. 15,000/- filed prior to the amendment is not maintainable. Had the above decision of the Division Bench been pronounced prior to the disposal of C.M.A. No. 52/91 by the learned Addl. District Judge, Rajamundry, it is perfectly open to the petitioner to contend that the appeal could not have been entertained by the learned District Judge and the only forum that was competent to dispose of C.M.A. No. 52/91 was the High Court. But, the Division Bench decision referred to above was rendered subsequently and it was reported in the Law Journal on 15th March, 1993. That being the case, it cannot be said that the learned appellate Judge committed an error of jurisdiction in entertaining C.M.A. No. 52/91. The effect of the decision of the Division Bench referred to above is not to set at naught the appeals entertained by the District Courts and disposed of by them prior to the clarification of legal position by the Division Bench.
6. It is pleaded in the counter-affidavit filed by the Ist respondent that subsequent to the disposal of CM. A.No52 of 1991 and consequent to restoration of the suit, the Ist respondent examined P. W.2 and closed his evidence; that the petitioner’s sister and mother were examined as D.Ws. 1 and 2 and that the lower court has direct that a retired Sub-Registrar and an Auditor should be examined as Court Witnesses. From the facts referred to above, it is clear that after restoration of suit, the evidence of plaintiff was completed and the defendants have also 1st in their oral and documentary evidence. It is stated in the reply affidavit that the petitioner is participating in the proceedings of the suit without prejudice to her contentions in the C.R.P.
7. As I observed already, since the Division Bench decision clarifying about the jurisdiction by virtue of the amendment of Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Amendment Act 1984 (Act 19 of 84) with regard to the jurisdiction of the District Court has been rendered after the disposal of C.M.A. No. 52 of 1991, I held that the said decision will not have any application for the appeals which have already been filed and disposed of by the appellate courts. If the interpretation given by the learned counsel for the petitioner were to be accepted it will for reaching consequences of setting aside the judgments rendered by the appellate courts in all appeal suits and C.M.As. subsequent to the Amendment Act of No. 19 of 84 coming into force and the reporting of the judgment in K. Hara Gopal v. K. Venkata Ratna Kumar (1 supra) in the issue dated 15-3-1993. Such a consequence would not have been contemplated by the learned Judges of the Division Bench referred to above.
8. From the above discussion, I held that the judgment of the learned I Addl. District Judge, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District dated 26-10-92 in C.M.A.No. 52 of 1991 cannot be said to be one passed without jurisdiction as per law then prevailing and I, therefore, do not find any grounds to interfere with the judgment in the revision.
9. The C.A.P.S.R. No. 17414 of 1993 is accordingly rejected at the stage of admission.