JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and, decree of 20.8.2009, as rendered by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No. 1, Rohru, District Shimla in Civil Suit No. 77/1 of 2009/06, whereby, the learned Court below hence dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit. The plaintiffs, standing aggrieved therefrom, hence for begetting reversal of the verdict, rendered by the learned court below, have instituted the instant regular second appeal, before this Court. 2. Significantly, before this Court proceeds to make, an, adjudication, upon, the merits, of, the instant RFA, it is deemed fit and appropriate to make an adjudication, whether in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, the rendition made on 20.8.2009, upon Civil Suit No. 77/1 of 2009/06, hence by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 1, Rohru, District Shimla, the latter holding the pecuniary limits, of, jurisdiction to entertain, try, and make an adjudication, upon, the afore civil suit. A perusal of the notification, bearing No. HHC/PJ/93-I-4093-4112, issued, on 21st February, 2009, hence prior to the making, of, a rendition on 28.8.2009, upon, the afore civil suit hence by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 1, Rohru, District Shimla, unfolds: (a) qua the pecuniary limits of jurisdiction of the Court, of, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) and, appertaining to, the original suits, being exercisable, upon, the pecuniary values of the apposite suits, exceeding Rs. 5,00,000/- and not exceeding Rs. 10,00,000/-. Since, in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, the making of a verdict, upon, the afore civil suit, the value of the civil suit, is apparently borne, in a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- and, when the afore notification, hence empowers the Court, of, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), to, vis-a-vis, original suits, hence holding a value, of above Rs. 5,00,000/- to also assume jurisdiction therein. (b) thereupon with an uncontested averment, being borne, in the plaint qua the suit, being valued, in a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- hence renders the making, of, a decision, upon, the afore civil suit, rather by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) concerned, to be merit-worthy, and, not lacking, in, jurisdictional empowerments. 3. 5,00,000/- to also assume jurisdiction therein. (b) thereupon with an uncontested averment, being borne, in the plaint qua the suit, being valued, in a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- hence renders the making, of, a decision, upon, the afore civil suit, rather by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) concerned, to be merit-worthy, and, not lacking, in, jurisdictional empowerments. 3. Be that as it may, since, thereafter the appeal against the verdict rendered, upon, the afore civil suit, was to be made, before the learned District Judge concerned, however, the verdict has been appealed, before this Court (a) and hence it is imperative to determine, whether, the instant RFA is maintainable before this Court, or the, aggrieved from the verdict made, upon, the afore civil suit, is to cast a challenge thereto, before the Court, of, the learned District Judge concerned. 4. To decide the afore conundrum, an imperative illusion, is enjoined to be made, to Section 21, of, the Himachal Pradesh Courts Act, 1976, provisions whereof stands, extracted hereinafter: “21. Appeals from [Civil Judges]: (I) Save as aforesaid, an appeal from decree or order of a [Civil Judge]shall lie: (a) to the District Judge where the value of the original suit in which the decree or order was made did not exceed [twenty lakh rupees]. (b) to the High Court in any other case.” 5. A perusal, of, apt clause (a) of Sub-Section 1 of Section 21 of the Act, and, visibly commencing from 22.9.2009, hence with its acquiring force, before the filing, of, the instant RFA, when makes apt candid under-linings, qua, upon values of the original suit, as tried, by the learned trial Judge concerned, hence not exceeding Rs. 20,00,000/- (a) thereupon the appeal there-against, hence being constituteable, only before, the learned District Judge concerned (b) and, when the value of the original suit, even if tried, by the learned trial Judge concerned, rather exceeds Rs. 20,00,000/- thereupon the verdict and decree, rendered by the learned Civil Judge concerned, being amenable for being appealed against, hence before the High Court. 20,00,000/- thereupon the verdict and decree, rendered by the learned Civil Judge concerned, being amenable for being appealed against, hence before the High Court. Moreover, reiteratedly since the afore mandate, occurring in clause (a) of sub-Section 1 of Section 21 of the Himachal Pradesh Courts Act, 1976 and appertaining, to value of the original suit, tried by the learned Civil Judge, hence not, exceeding 20,00,000/- rather occurred, in the year 2009, (c) and, whereat, the relevant and appropriate stage, hence in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, the institution, of, the instant RFA, before this Court, the apt reckonable pecuniary values of the original suit, whereon judgments and decrees, stood pronounced, hence by the learned Civil Judge concerned, when pointedly fall below Rs. 20,00,000/- rather renders vis-a-vis, the apt rendition hence recorded, upon, (d) the afore values, of, the civil suit concerned, being appeal against, in contemporaniety vis-a-vis, the then in force law, rather only before, the learned District Judge concerned, (d) thereupon the preferment, of, the instant appeal, against the judgment and decree, rendered, by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No. 1, Rohru, is, at the apt stage hence, outside the pecuniary limits, of, jurisdiction of this Courts, rather is within the pecuniary limits, of, the jurisdiction, of, learned District Judge concerned, (e) hence the instant appeal is transferred, from, the docket of this Court, to, the dockets of the Court of the learned District Judge, Shimla and, the latter shall, after assigning registration number, thereto, is, directed to, within six months, hereafter, hence make a decision, thereon, in accordance with law.