IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 153 OF 2004 M/S GREAVES COTTON LTD.,MUMBAI - 4OO 025. ... Appellant Versus M/S SAPNA CERAMICS PVT.LTD.,MARGAO GOA. ... Respondent Mr. A.F. Diniz, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. M. S. Sonak, Advocate for the respondent. Coram:- D. G. KARNIK & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date:- 16th September, 2010 P.C. This appeal arises out of a suit, bearing Special Civil Suit No.68/1990, instituted by the appellant in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Margao Goa. The suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.19,00,000/- and the suit was valued at Rs.19,00,000/- for the purpose of jurisdiction. The respondent contested the suit and made a counter claim in the sum of Rs.22,22,791/-. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the appellant and allowed the entire counter claim. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the appellant has approached this Court. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant invited our attention to Section 20A of the Goa, Daman and Diu Civil Courts Act, 1965 as amended by the Goa Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2009. Section 20A introduced by the amendment provides that all appeals which are valued up to Rs.20,00,000/- or below and pending before the High Court immediately before the commencement of the Goa Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2009, shall, on such commencement stand transferred to the concerned District Court and such District Court may proceed to deal with such appeals from the stage which was reached before such transfer or from any earlier stage or de-novo as such District Court may deem fit. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that since the claim in the suit was less than Rs.20,00,000/-, the appeal is required to be transferred to the District Court irrespective of the amount of the counter claim. In support he relied upon a decision of this Court in Teofilo Barreto V/s Sadashiva G. Nasnodkar and others, 2007(4) Bom.C.R. 830. In the said case a learned Single Judge, in well considered judgment, has held that jurisdiction of the Court for hearing an appeal is to be decided on the basis of the amount claimed in the suit and not on the basis of the counter claim. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent does not dispute the correctness of the view taken by the Single Judge Bench in the case of Teofilo Barreto ( supra ). 3. Since the amount involved in the original suit was less than Rs.20,00,000/- which, as per the decision of this Court in the case of Teofilo Barreto, determines the jurisdiction of Appellate Court, the appeal needs to be transferred to the District Court as the amount in the original suit was less than Rs.20,00,000/-. The submission of the learned Counsel for the parties is accepted. The appeal shall stand transferred to the concerned District Court. 4. Taking into consideration that the original appeal is filed in the year 2004, the District Court shall expedite the hearing of the appeal as it was instituted in the year 2004. D. G. KARNIK, J. F. M. REIS, J. at*