The Taxing Officer has rightly referred to the decision of Nagpur High Court in the case of Arjuna Govinda v. Amrita Keshiba and Ors., reported in AIR 1956 Nagpur 281 for the proposition that right of appeal is a substantive right as distinguished from a mere procedural right. It inheres in a party at the time of the filing of initial proceedings or the plaint in a suit. It continues till the civil suit is finally disposed of exhausting all rights initially vested in a party at the time of filing of the suit or the proceedings. This inherent right can be taken away by making an express provision in the amending Act. If such a provision is made expressly or it is implied then operation of the amending Act would be retrospective, affecting the vested right of the parties in all pending action. In absence of an express or implied provision, the procedural right may be taken away with the retrospective effect, but not a substantive right. The proposition follows from the rule of interpretation that no party has a vested right to a particular procedure. However, it is equally well established that same cannot be said a substantive right. If it is a vested right then the Legislature can take it away by saying in so many words or by clear intendment. This proposition was accepted by a Full Bench of Nagpur High Court in Radhakisan Laxminarayan Toshnival v. Shridhar Ramchandra Alshi and Ors., reported in AIR 1950 Nagpur 177. It is of no use to multiply the cases on this point because Five-Judge Bench of Supreme Court in the case of Garikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhry and Ors., AIR 1957 SC 540, by majority has applied the above principle. In that case, the Supreme Court was required to consider whether a decision in a suit filed in the year 1949, was appealable to the Supreme Court as of right because it involved property worth more than Rs. 10,000/-. It was objected to that it would not be so appealable on the date of filing of the appeal. The amended provisions did not permit filing of appeal to Supreme Court merely because the property was worth Rs. 10,000/- or more. The requirement was that the value of the property should be Rs. 20,000/- or more.