A.K. Goel, CJ.:— The matter has been placed before this Bench to decide the question of maintainabilin of this appeal in view of the order of the Division Bench dated 25.11.2009 as follows: -"In this Letters Patent Appeal, the ques tions raised are as follows: 1. In view of the scheme for administration of justice under the North East Frontier (Administration and Justice) Regulations, 1945 (in short, 4the Regulations'), whether the High Court can entertain Letters Patent Appeal if the decree is passed by a Single Judge of the High Court in a suit or a proceeding instituted within the territorial limits of the outlying Bench of Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh? 2. Whether the High Court had, at any point of time, jurisdiction under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of 1865, read with the Assam High Court Orders, 1948, to exercise powers of Letters Patent in respect of any matter arising within an area, where the Regulations have been in force? 3. In the absence of jurisdiction under the Letters Patent, whether the High Court, by virtue of Article 225 of the Constitution of India, can itself create the remedy of writ appeal if the cause of action arises within the territory of the State of Arunachal Pradesh, where the Regulations have been in force? In view of the fact that the decision on the issues raised, in this case, may have far reaching consequences, this Bench is of the considered view that this appeal needs to be laid before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for consideration if the matter needs to be referred to a larger Bench. The Registry is, therefore, directed to lay the matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for further necessary order." 2. The appellant challenged the order dated 31.7.2006 passed by the Deputy Commis sioner, East Siang District in the State of Arunachal Pradesh with regard to his rights in the disputed land by way of an appeal to this Court under regulation 48 of the North East Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulations, 1945. The appeal was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 22.8.2007 in FAO No. 14 (AP)/2006. 3.
The appeal was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 22.8.2007 in FAO No. 14 (AP)/2006. 3. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of 1865, setting up the High Court of Calcutta, as applicable to the jurisdiction of Gauhati High Court as per the Assam High Court Orders, 1948 read with Article 225 of the Constitution. 4. The respondent raised objection to the maintainability of the appeal in view of Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. The stand of the appellant is that the said provision was not applicable to the State of Arunachal Pradesh prior to 28.2.2008 when the Central Laws (Extension to Arunachal Pradesh) Act, 2007 came into force making the CPC applicable to the State of Arunachal Pradesh as CPC was not applicable in view of North East Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulations, 1945 read with Article 372 of the Constitution. 6. This led to the reference to the larger Bench. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since Section 100A of CPC was not applicable to the State of Arunachal Pradesh on the date of filing of the appeal, the right of the appellant to file appeal was not affected by subsequent adoption of CPC in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. Accord ingly, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court Mohd Saud & Anr. Vs. Dr. (Maj) Shaikh Mahfooz & Ors., (2010) 13 SCC 517 was not applicable. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to dispute the above factual and legal position. 10. It is well settled that right of appeal is to be seen as on the date of the lis, unless taken away by subsequent enactment expressly or by necessary intendment. Reference may be made to well known judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Garikapati Veer ay a Vs. N. Subbiah Choudhury, AIR 1957 SC 540 . 11. In the present case, the appeal was filed prior to application of CPC i.e. 28.2.2008, when the matter was governed by Letters Patent as applicable. Such appeal was clearly maintainable. Appeal filed after 28.2.2008 will not be maintainable in view of law laid down in Mohd. Saud (supra). 12. The question referred stands decided accordingly. 13. The reference is disposed of. 14.
Such appeal was clearly maintainable. Appeal filed after 28.2.2008 will not be maintainable in view of law laid down in Mohd. Saud (supra). 12. The question referred stands decided accordingly. 13. The reference is disposed of. 14. The matter now be placed before appropriate Division Bench for further consideration in accordance with law. On request of learned counsel for the parties, the matter stands transferred to Itanagar Bench. ____________