ORDER : M. Seetharama Murti, J. 1. This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed by the petitioner - plaintiff against the return endorsement of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, passed in an unnumbered Original Suit of the year 2018. 2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner - plaintiff ['plaintiff', for brevity], at the stage of admission. I have perused the material record. 3. From the pleadings and submissions, the facts discernable are as follows: The plaintiff instituted the present suit (un-numbered suit), on 12.11.2018, before the Senior Civil Court, Mangaiagiri. After scrutiny, the office of the said Court returned the plaint, on 14.11.2018, with certain office objections. The plaint was re-presented, on 20.11.2018, by making a submission that the objections taken by the office of the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge are complied with. On 06.12.2018, the plaint was returned with the following objection taken by the office of the Senior Civil Court, Mangalagiri: 'The plaint pecuniary value jurisdiction is below 20 Lakhs as per the Hon'ble High Court ROC. No. 891/50-1/2018 (2011), Dt. 09.11.2018. Hence, the suit is returned to file before the proper Court.' [Reproduced verbatim] In view of the said return endorsement of the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, the plaintiff presented the plaint and instituted the suit accordingly before the Principal Junior Civil Court, Mangalagiri, on 11.12.2018, along with a certificate related to Court fee already paid. On 11.12.2018, the office of the Principal Junior Civil Court, Mangalagiri, returned the plaint with the following endorsement: 'How this Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit as A.P. Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018 (Act No. 26/2018) came into force with effect from 15.11.2018 vide G.O.Ms. No. 175 Law (L & LA and Justice, Home. Courts-A) department, dt. 08.11.2018. Moreover the said Act has not come into force with retrospective effect. Hence, the plaint is returned as it is filed on 12.11.2018 vide CFR. No. 4757 on the file of Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge's Court, Mangalagiri. [See 2001 (4) ALT page No. 270 (DB)]. [Reproduced verbatim] Thereafter, the plaintiff re-presented the plaint and instituted the suit once again in Senior Civil Court, Mangalagiri. Hence, the plaint is returned as it is filed on 12.11.2018 vide CFR. No. 4757 on the file of Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge's Court, Mangalagiri. [See 2001 (4) ALT page No. 270 (DB)]. [Reproduced verbatim] Thereafter, the plaintiff re-presented the plaint and instituted the suit once again in Senior Civil Court, Mangalagiri. However, by a detailed order, dated 03.01.2019, the Senior Civil Court once again returned the plaint observing as follows:- "...The judgment as referred by the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, is not applicable to the case on hand and the said judgment is applicable only if the suits are already instituted and pending on the file of the competent courts of jurisdiction and the law as on the date of filing of suit would govern until the disposal of the suit. Whereas in the present case, the plaintiff filed the suit and cognizance was not taken and in such circumstances the judgment as referred is not applicable to the case on hand and it is for the plaintiff to avail the remedy as available under law only. Hence, the plaint is returned." 3.1. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that in the prayer portion, the date of return and the CFR are incorrectly mentioned and that the date of final return by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, is 03.01.2019, and the CFR number is 4757 of 2018. 4. In the above stated background it is apparent that neither the original Court, that is the Senior Civil Court, in which the suit is originally instituted, nor the Junior Civil Court entertained the suit. Learned Senior Civil Judge is of the view that the Civil Court (Junior Division) is the competent Court having pecuniary jurisdiction whereas the learned Junior Civil Judge is of the view that the Civil Court (Senior Division) is the competent Court having pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 5. In this background, it is necessary to first note that the provisions of the Civil Courts Act, dealing with pecuniary jurisdiction limits of the Subordinate Courts on the original side as well as of the appellate Courts on the appellate side were amended. By the said relevant amendment, the pecuniary original jurisdiction of the Senior Civil Court is enhanced from Rs. 20.00 lakhs to Rs. 50.00 lakhs and of the Junior Civil Court is enhanced from Rs. 3.00 lakhs to Rs. 20.00 lakhs. By the said relevant amendment, the pecuniary original jurisdiction of the Senior Civil Court is enhanced from Rs. 20.00 lakhs to Rs. 50.00 lakhs and of the Junior Civil Court is enhanced from Rs. 3.00 lakhs to Rs. 20.00 lakhs. The Government issued Part-I Extraordinary Gazette Notification appointing 15.11.2018 as the date on which the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018 [Act No. 26 of 2018] shall come into force. The High Court communicated the said notification to all the subordinate Courts vide endorsement, ROC. No. 891/SO/1/2011(2018). 6. Before proceeding further, it is to be noted that the instant suit is filed for specific performance of a possessory agreement of sale, dated 02.02.2007, and the valuation of the relief claimed in the suit reads verbatim as under: "Valuation of the suit: This being a suit for specific performance of contract Value of the plaint schedule property under Possessory Sale Agreement dated 02.02.2007 Rs. 6,00,000/-. On which a Court fee of Rs. .....is payable U/s. 39 of APCF and SV Act, 1956 and in lieu of payment of Court fee, a sum of Rs. .... Is deposited in this Hon'ble Court account in State Bank of India, Mangalagiri and counter foil of challan is herewith filed. Value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction is Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only)" 7. In this background of factual matrix, it is to be next noted that the suit was initially instituted, on 12.11.2018, in the Senior Civil Court, because, as on the date of such institution, the said Court is the proper Court having pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. However, the provisions of the amended Act related to pecuniary original jurisdiction of the subordinate courts came into force on 15.11.2018. In view of the notification of the Government appointing 15.11.2018' as the date on which the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018 [Act No. 26 of 2018] shall come into force and as the amended provisions have no retrospective effect and as the suit was instituted in the Senior Civil Court even before the amended provisions of the Civil Courts Act came into force and as the date of institution is the determinative factor, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, the Senior Civil Court, Mangalagiri, is the proper forum having pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The view of this Court that the date of the institution of the suit is the relevant criterion draws support from the decision in Dugireddy Ramakrishna Reddy v. AP State Co-operative Societies, 2001 (4) ALT 270 (DB). The said decision was rendered referring to an earlier order, dated 14.02.2001, passed in CRP 4749 of 2000, inter alia, stating that in the said order, dated 14.02.2001, it was held as follows:- "The amendments to the AP Civil Courts Act, 1972, as amended under Act 29 of 1997 are prospective in nature and the amended provisions have no application to the suits instituted and pending on the file of the competent Courts of jurisdiction". In Maddileti Alivelamma v. Saraswathamma, 2001 (2) ALD 605 [CRP. No. 4749 of 2000], while considering the effect of Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972 (as amended by Act 29 of 1997) it was observed that the amendment to the provisions as amended vide Act 29 of 1997 was prospective in nature and the amended provisions have no application to suits already instituted and pending on the file of the competent Court of jurisdiction and that the law as on the date of filing of the suit will govern until disposal of the suit. In the said decision, the decision in K. Hara Gopal and others v. K. Venkata Ratna Kumar and another, 1993 (1) ALT 482 was followed and it was held that the Senior Civil Judge in whose Court the suit was instituted was entitled to consider the suit de hors the amendment raising the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Munsif Court from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 1.00 lakh. It was further held that the provisions of the Act as in force as on the date of the institution of the suit will apply in respect of such suits instituted until their final determination and that in the circumstances, the proceedings of the District Judge withdrawing and transferring the suit to the Court of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge was set aside. Following the same decision, the Division Bench in Duggireddy Ramakrishna Reddy [supra], held that the Amendment Act 29 of 1997 had no application to the suits pending in the competent Courts and that the law as on the date of filing of the suit governs until the disposal of the suit. Following the same decision, the Division Bench in Duggireddy Ramakrishna Reddy [supra], held that the Amendment Act 29 of 1997 had no application to the suits pending in the competent Courts and that the law as on the date of filing of the suit governs until the disposal of the suit. Further in Vallabhaneni Lakshmana Swamy and another v. Valluru Basavaiah and others, 2004 (5) ALT 755 a Full Bench of the erstwhile AP High Court while dealing with the Civil Court (Amendment) Act 30 of 1989 held that the Civil Court (Amendment) Act 30 of 1989 is applicable prospectively from 1.12.1989. 8. Having regard to the fact that the suit was instituted in the Senior Civil Court prior to the date on which the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018 [Act No. 26 of 2018] came into force, the contents of the gazette notification of the Government, which is communicated by the High Court to the Subordinate Courts, the legal position obtaining and the finding of this Court that the date of institution of the suit is the criterion and not the date of registration of the plaint by the Court or the date of numbering of the suit, this Court holds that the impugned order returning the plaint, which was passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, is liable to be set aside. 9. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned return endorsement is set aside with a direction to the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mangalgiri, to receive the plaint and number the suit if it is otherwise in order, as the said Court is the proper Court having pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present suit, which was instituted on 12.11.2018. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.