The Act dealt with the High Court at Hyderabad as a transitional common court until the High Court of AP was established. Court jurisdiction, judges, staff and pending cases require legal continuity when a state is divided. The old common-court arrangement should not be repeated as the current status without checking later establishment orders. A common High Court is different from a common capital, though both were transition issues.

For an exam, classify the subject first. A criminal appeal goes through the applicable judicial hierarchy, while a state government's capital building plan is an infrastructure matter. A court can be housed in a new building without the building's completion being the legal event that creates jurisdiction. Section 94(3) includes a High Court building among essential capital facilities for central financial support. That financial clause is not itself the provision that allocates judges or pending matters.

Worked example: A court case filed before bifurcation did not vanish because the state divided. The Act had to provide court continuity and later allocation of jurisdiction, judges, staff and pending proceedings. A common High Court was a transition arrangement, while a High Court building is a physical asset. Section 94(3) financial support for a building is therefore not the legal instrument that decides every pending appeal.

Active recall: Why did the Act need a High Court transition? How does a court's legal establishment differ from construction of its building?