ORDER B.K. Behera, J. - The appellant-petitioner seeks an order of this Court u/s 24 of the CPC for transfer of First Appeal No. 106 of 1977 valued at Rs. 14,430/- arising out of the judgment and decree dated April 30, 1976 and May 11, 1976 respectively, passed by the learned Subordinate judge, Balangir, in Title Suit No. 22 of 1954, presented in this Court on July 17, 1976. It has been urged by Mr. Swain for the appellant-petitioner that on and from January 1, 1985, the Orissa Civil Courts Act, 1984 (Orissa Act 18 of 1984) (for short, the 'Act') came into force conferring jurisdiction on the District Judges of the State to entertain appeals arising out of decrees or orders in which the suits or proceedings have been valued at rupees twenty thousand or less and as Section 13 of the Act provides for continuance of the proceedings in the Courts which are now clothed with higher jurisdiction and there is no express provision in the Act that the pending appeals will continue to be heard in this Court, the appeal is now to be heard by the District Judge, Balangir. It has been contended on behalf of the respondents-opposite parties that the Act can have no effect on the appeals pending in this Court in respect of suits or proceedings valued at reduces twenty thousand or less which have been presented in this Court prior to the coming into force of the Act. 2. In Duryodhan Samal Vs. Smt. Uma Dei and Others this Bench hid the occasion to interpret Section 16 of the Act and consider as to whether appeals arising out of the suits or proceedings instituted prior to the commencement of the Act which had been valued at rupees twenty thousand or less would lie to this Court or to the Courts of the District Judges. It has been held that appeals presented on the coming into force of the Act arising out of suits or proceedings valued at rupees twenty thousand or less irrespective of whether the suits Or proceedings have been instituted prior or subsequent to the coming into force of the Act shall lie to the District Judges and not to the High Court. Some other Division Benches of this Court have held the same view. The question raised in this appeal was not directly involved in the aforesaid reported case. Some other Division Benches of this Court have held the same view. The question raised in this appeal was not directly involved in the aforesaid reported case. 3. Section 16 of the Act, in so far as is relevant for this case, provides : "16. (1) Save as otherwise provided by any enactment for the time being in force, (a) an appeal from a decree or order of a District Judge or Additional District Judge shall lie to the High Court ; (b) an appeal shall not lie to the High Court from a decree or order of an Additional District Judge in any case, in which if the same had been made by the District Judge an appeal.would not lie to the High Court. (2) Save as aforesaid, an appeal from the decree or order of a Subordinate Judge shall lie: (a) to the District Judge, where the value of the original suit in which or in any proceeding arising rut of which the decree or order was made, did not exceed twenty thousand rupees ; and (b) to the High Court, in any other case. XX XX XX This section makes provision with regard to the Court to which an appeal shall lie on the coming into force of the Act and not with regard to the Court in which any pending appeal is to be heard. 4. Section 13 of the Act provides : "13. (1) Where any Civil Court established under the Act has, from any cause, ceased to have jurisdiction with respect to any case, any proceedings in relation to that case which, if that Court had not ceased to have jurisdiction might have been had therein, may be had in the Court to which the business of the former Court has been transferred : Provided that if such proceeding relates to a part-heard case it shall continue in the file of the Court ceasing to have jurisdiction upto the stage of delivery of the judgment XX XX XX It has been contended on behalf of the appellant-petitioner that on and from January 1, 1985, this Court has ceased to have jurisdiction in respect of the present appeal and therefore, this appeal would stand transferred to the Court of the District Judge, Balangir. This contention has no force as Section 13 relates to a Civil Court established under the Act within the meaning of Section 2 of the Act which enumerates the classes of Civil Courts and not to the High Court. 5. This Court has jurisdiction to hear appeals arising out of suits or proceedings valued at rupees twenty thousand or less which have been presented in this Court on or before the 31st day of December, 1984 and such appeals will be continued in and disposed of by this Court. 6. The Miscellaneous Case is accordingly dismissed. P.C. Misra, J. 7. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed