IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.842 of 2007 1.Om Prakash Prasad. 2.Nand Kishore Prasad. 3.Vinay Kumar Prasad. 4.Sunil Kumar Prasad. 5.Arun Kumar. 6.Ashok Kumar Prasad. All Sons of Late Govind Sao @ Govind Prasad. 7.Lakhan Sao Son of Late Amrit Sao. All R/o Mohalla- Mirjapur Jagjiwan Station/Hospital Road Nawada, P.O. and P.S.- Nawada, District-Nawada---------- ----------------Defendants—Appellants-Petitioners. Versus 1.Krishnandan Prasad. 2.Sri Nandan Prasad. 3.Sachitanand Prasad. 4.Mahendra Prasad. All S/o Late Bhagwan Das Sao. All R/o Village- Marui, P.O. & P.S.-Roh, District- Nawadah----Plaintiffs-Respondents-Opp.Parties-Ist Set. 5.Munshi Sao, Son of Late Darori Sao. 6.Lekha Ram Sao @ Dilip Kumar Prasad, Son of Munshi Sao. Both R/o Mohalla-Mirjapur, Jagjiwan Station/Hospital Road Nawada, P.O. and P.S.- Nawada, District-Nawada -- ---------Defendatns-Respondetns-Opp.Parties 2nd Set. 10. 22.07.2011 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing on 2 behalf of the respondents. Admittedly two suits for partition were filed and a preliminary decree was passed on 25.07.1967 in both the suits. The valuation of the suits were admittedly below Rs. 2,00000/-and accordingly, the appeals against the preliminary decree were filed before the High Court as per the then prevailing law. In the year 2006 the final decree came to be passed on 30th June, 2006 and the Title Appeal No. 20 of 2006 against the same has been filed before the District Judge. An objection regarding the maintainability of this later appeal was raised and considered by the appellate court below which has held that the appeal was not maintainable before that Court in view of Section 21 of Bengal, Assam and Orissa Civil Courts Act 1887 as notified on 01.10.1996. This order dated 26.03.2007 is under challenge in this civil revision application. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opp. parties has fairly conceded that the appeal is maintainable before the appellate court below. The learned counsel has also explained the position of law by placing the different provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the relevant laws. 3 There is no dispute that the final decree has come to be passed on 30th June, 2006 and as per the law prevailing on that date, the forum for filing the appeal was the District Judge in view of the enhanced valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction. The reasoning assigned by the Appellate Court below that the date of the final decree even though passed on 30th June, 2006 will revert back to the date of judgment i.e. 25.09.1967 does not appear to be correct. If this reasoning of the appellate court below is accepted and the date of the final decree is to be taken tobe 25.09.1967 then the appeal against such a decree would be hopelessly barred by law of limitation. The learned appellate court below appears to have committed illegality and jurisdictional error in holding that the appeal is not maintainable before that Court. As a result this civil revision application is allowed and order is, accordingly, set aside. Nitesh (V.Nath, J.)