JUDGMENT 1. (Oral) - This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No. 132/87 dated 3rd January, 2003 whereby the first appeal arising from the judgment and decree dated 25th of November, 1987 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Sri Ganga Nagar was found without merit and the same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 2. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the special appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge passed in a civil appeal filed under Section 96, C.PC., is not maintainable in view of Section 100-A thereof as substituted by Section 4 of the C.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 2002. It was contended that all vested rights of appeal before Division Bench against the judgment of learned Single Judge under the Code of Civil Procedure have been curtailed by providing that no appeal shall be maintainable against the judgment of learned Single Judge. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the right of appeal is vested right and accrues from the date of commencement of lis though it may actually be exercised when the adverse judgment is pronounced. According to him, such a right must be governed by the law prevailing on the date of institution of the suit or the proceeding and not by the law that is in vogue on the date of its decision or date of filing of the appeal. 4. We have considered submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. The submission looks attractive but cannot be sustained. It is well settled that vested right of appeal can be taken away by a subsequent enactment or amendment, if it so provides, expressly or by necessary implication. The right to file intra court appeal vests in the party not on the date of filing the suit, but vests in him on the date judgment is delivered by a learned Single Judge. It may be noticed that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is dated 3rd January, 2003 while the aforesaid amendment came into force w.e.f. 1st of July, 2002. This being so the Amendment Act would be applicable and no further appeal can be allowed to be filed in the case. 5. It may be noticed that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is dated 3rd January, 2003 while the aforesaid amendment came into force w.e.f. 1st of July, 2002. This being so the Amendment Act would be applicable and no further appeal can be allowed to be filed in the case. 5. A Full Bench decision of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 901/2001, the State of Rajasthan and Anr. V.R.C. Mishra & ors. has also taken a somewhat similar view. The Division Bench In this regard has observed as under "Apparently, if there is no vested right that a proceeding whether appeal or other lodged in High Court be heard by a Single Judge, the right to appeal to Division Bench against the judgment of the learned Single Judge obviously cannot vest in a party to proceedings In High Court until order is passed by the Single Judge. Whether a Single Judge decides or a Division Bench decides the case depends upon the assignment of business to Single Bench or Division Bench as per the Rules of business prevailing on the date the case is heard. Therefore, until the case is decided by a Single Judge, the question of right to special appeal or letters patent appeal cannot arise. If on the date case is decided by a Single Judge of the High Court, the right may arise in favour of a party to the appeal before Division Bench, If the right to such appeal exists on that date. Otherwise, no vested right to appeal before Division Bench at all vest in the party to such case." 6. In view of the forgoing, the appeal is dismissed as being not maintainable. 7. At this stage the learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant shall vacate the premises by 30th April, 2003 and shall pay prior to that date all the amounts awarded by way of mesne profits to the plaintiff respondent by means of a demand draft. Learned counsel says that the appellant shall furnish undertaking to that effect within a period of three weeks. 8. Learned counsel says that the appellant shall furnish undertaking to that effect within a period of three weeks. 8. Having regard to the statement of learned counsel for the appellant, we allow the request and permit the appellant to remain in possession of the premises till 30th April, 2003 and direct that the possession of the premises shall be surrendered to the plaintiff respondent by 30th April, 2003. The requisite undertaking shall be furnished by the appellant within 3 weeks. The appellant shall not handover the possession to anyone else except the plaintiff respondent and amount awarded by way of mesne profit shall be paid to the plaintiff by the appellant through demand draft, prior to 30th April, 2003. No order as to costs.Appeal dismissed-appellant given time to vacate premises by 30.4.2003. *******