JUDGMENT : MADAN GOPAL VYAS, J. The present civil first appeal under Section 96 of the CPC has been preferred by the appellant-defendant against the judgment and decree dated 30.09.1994 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.3, Udaipur (for short, ‘learned trial Court’) in Civil Original Case No.63/1993. 2. Before going into the merits of the appeal, the question for consideration is that whether the present first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.09.1994 passed by learned trial Court is maintainable before this Court or not ? 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had preferred the present first appeal under Section 96 of the CPC before this Court against the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court only for the reason that an amendment in the Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1950 (for short, ‘the Ordinance of 1950’) came in the year 1992 w.e.f. 12.08.1992 by which the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Courts of Munsiffs and Civil Judge was revised and enhanced. It is further submitted that vide amendment of 1992, the pecuniary jurisdiction of Civil Judge was enhanced from Rs.25,000/-to Rs.50,000/. Similarly, the jurisdiction of District Judge to hear original and appellate matters was also revised. However, since the present suit was filed before the amendment came in force, it was triable by the District Judge and thus, an appeal against the judgment of District Judge lies before this Court. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Lal and Another Vs. Dhaka Devi and another (Civil Revision petition No.222/1993),decided on 06.07.1994 in which it has been held that the operation of the amendment in Raj. Civil Courts (Ordinance), 1950 is “prospective” and not “retrospective” and thus, the pending proceedings shall not governed by the amendment in Ordinance of 1950. Learned counsel further submitted that the present suit was filed on 01.06.1990 i.e. prior to the promulgation of the amendment in Ordinance of 1950, therefore, the present appeal is maintainable before this Court only. Learned counsel further submitted that the valuation of the present suit was Rs.27,508/-at the relevant point of time which was maintainable before the District Judge and, therefore, the appeal lies to this Court. Thus, it is prayed that the present appeal may be allowed. 4. Learned counsel further submitted that the valuation of the present suit was Rs.27,508/-at the relevant point of time which was maintainable before the District Judge and, therefore, the appeal lies to this Court. Thus, it is prayed that the present appeal may be allowed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record as well as the provisions of Sections 19 and 21 (before amendment and after amendment) of Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1950 as well as the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant. 5. In the present case, the suit was filed on 01.06.1990 before the Court of District Judge, Udaipur. Thereafter, the suit was transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge No.2, Udaipur vide order dated 18.08.1990. Then, on 31.07.1993 the suit was transferred from the Court of Additional District Judge No.2, Udaipur to the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.3, Udaipur. The said suit was decreed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.3, Udaipur vide its judgment and decree dated 30.09.1994. The amendment in the Ordinance of 1950 came in the year 1992 w.e.f. 12.08.1992. For the purpose of adjudication of the above question, it would be apt to reproduce the amended and unamended provisions of Sections 19 and 21 of the Ordinance of 1950 which read as under :- Unamended provisions (Raj. Civil Courts Ordinance, 1950) “19. Jurisdiction of other Courts (1) Subject as aforesaid :- (i) the court of a Civil Judge shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine all original suits and proceedings of a civil nature, and (ii) the court of a Munsiff shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine all original suits and proceedings of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed five thousand rupees : Provided that the State Government may by notification published in the Official Gazette increase the limit of five thousand rupees to ten thousand rupees in the case of any munsiff of not less than ten years’ standing and specially recommended in this behalf by the High Court. A Munsiff so empowered shall continue to exercise this power so long and as often as he may fill the office of a Munsiff without reference to the district in which he may be employed, unless the powers are withdrawn by the State Government. A Munsiff so empowered shall continue to exercise this power so long and as often as he may fill the office of a Munsiff without reference to the district in which he may be employed, unless the powers are withdrawn by the State Government. (2) The Civil Judge may transfer to the Munsiff having jurisdiction any original suit or proceeding of a civil nature pending before him under this section, of which the value does not exceed five thousand rupees. 21. Appeals from Civil Judges and Munsiffs (1) Save as aforesaid, an appeal from a decree or order of a Civil Judge shall lie :- (a) to the District Judge where the value of the original suit in which, or in any proceeding arising out of which the decree or order was made did not exceed ten thousand rupees, and (b) to the High Court in any other case. (2) Save as aforesaid, an appeal from a decree or order of a Munsiff shall lie to the District Judge. (3) Where the function of receiving any appeals which lie to the District Judge under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) has been assigned to an Additional Judge, the appeals may be preferred to the Additional Judge. (4) The High Court may, with the previous sanction of the State Government direct by notification in the Official Gazette that appeals lying to the District Judge under sub-section(2) from all or any of the decrees or orders of any Munsiff shall be preferred to the Court of such Civil Judge, as may be mentioned in the notification, and appeals shall thereupon be preferred accordingly. (5) The High Court may transfer to the District Judge any appeals pending before it under this section where the value of the original suit in which or of any proceeding arising out of which, the decree or order was made, did not, exceed ten thousand rupees. Amended Provisions (Amended vide Rajasthan Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 1992 “19. Jurisdiction of other Civil Courts. -Subject as aforesaid - (i) the Court of a Civil Judge shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any suit or original proceedings of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed fifty thousand rupees, and (ii) The Court of Munsiff shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any suit or original proceedings of which the value does not exceed twenty five thousand rupees.” 21. Appeals from Civil Judges and Munsiffs (1) Save as aforesaid, an appeal from a decree or order of a Civil Judge shall lie- (a) to the District Judge where the value of original suit in which or in any proceedings arising out of which the decree or order was made, does not exceed fifty thousand rupees; and (b) to the High Court in any other case. (2) Save as aforesaid, an appeal from a decree or order of a Munsiff shall lie to the District Judge. .......” 6. In case of Ram Lal (supra), the issue with respect to operation of amendment as prospective or retrospective was decided and it was held that the Rajasthan Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 1992 is prospective in operation. The relevant portion of judgment is reproduced as under:- “The civil suit was filed prior to the Ordinance was promulgated and thus, the pending proceedings shall not be governed by the Ordinance. The operation of the Ordinance is prospective and not retrospective. Hence, the District Judge has committed an error of sending the case to the Munsiff/Magistrate for trial which was filed before the District Judge before the Ordinance came into force.” 7. However, in 1995, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Tara Chand and Ors. Vs. Shradhanand and Ors. passed in D.B. Civil Revision Petition No.186/1995, decided on 16.05.1995 while answering a reference overruled the case of Ram Lal (supra) and held that the amendment of 1992 in Rajasthan Civil Courts (Ordinance), 1950 is retrospective in nature. In para Nos.11 & 12, the larger Bench has held :- “11. According to sub-section (ii) of amended Section 19, a Court of Munsif, has Jurisdiction to hear and determine any suit or original proceedings of which the value does not exceed twenty five thousand rupees. There is no saving clause in the Ordinance No. 2/1992, indicating that the suits or proceedings pending in the Courts when the Ordinance came into force shall continue in the same Courts. In such circumstances, a Court of Munsif can try and decide any pending suit upto the valuation of rupees twenty- five thousand, which has been transferred to it by the District Judge. As the valuation of the suit is only Rs. 13,800/- the transferee Court is competent to decide the suit. In such circumstances, a Court of Munsif can try and decide any pending suit upto the valuation of rupees twenty- five thousand, which has been transferred to it by the District Judge. As the valuation of the suit is only Rs. 13,800/- the transferee Court is competent to decide the suit. The judgments reported in Board of Trustees (Supra), Jagdish's case (Supra) and Samdukhan's case (Supra), are not relevant to the questions referred in the present case. In Board of Trustees (Supra), the Apex Court held that the order passed by a Court lacking territorial jurisdiction was void. In Jagdish's case (Supra), this Court held that no objection as to place of suit shall be allowed by any appellate or revision Court unless such objection was taken in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity as provided under Section 21(1) of the Civil Procedure Code. In Samdukhan's case (Supra) this Court held that Section 21A of the Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance 1970 is retrospective. 12. Ram Lal's case (Supra), was argued exparte as none appeared on behalf of the non-petitioner. Bhanwar Lal's case (Supra) was not brought to the notice of the learned Judge, who decided Ram Lai's case. Mad the paid judgment been brought to the notice of learned Single Judge, he would not have taken a contrary view. Further more, no reasons have been given in the aforesaid judgment as to how the Ordinance No. 2 of 1992 is not applicable to the pending cases. In our opinion, Ram Lai's case (Supra) does not lay down correct law. We affirm the judgment passed in Bhanwar Lal's case (Supra) and decide Question Nos. 1 and 2 in negative and hold that District Judge had jurisdiction to transfer the suit which was pending before the Additional District Judge at the commencement of Ordinance No. 2 of 1992, to the Court of Munsif, and further that the decree passed by the transferee court i.e. by the Court of A.M.J.M. No. 3, does not suffer for want of jurisdiction and is valid. We further hold that Section 19 is retrospective.”(emphasis supplied) 8. Thus, the controversy involved in the present case has been laid at rest by the decision of this Court in Tara Chand (supra). We further hold that Section 19 is retrospective.”(emphasis supplied) 8. Thus, the controversy involved in the present case has been laid at rest by the decision of this Court in Tara Chand (supra). It has specifically been held that Section 19 of the Ordinance of 1950 is retrospective in nature and, therefore, in light of the ratio laid down in Tara Chand’s case (supra), the present civil first appeal is not maintainable before this Court and, the same is maintainable before the District Court concerned. 9. Consequently, the present appeal is disposed of with liberty to the appellant – defendant to challenge the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.09.1994 before the District Judge concerned. For this purpose, the appellant is entitled to apply for the original pleadings/record of the present civil first appeal and the office is directed to supply the same to the appellant while keeping the certified copy of the same in the record of this Court. 10. Record of the case be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith.