Their reasons for this view would appear broadly to be these: To accede to the appellant 's contention a retrospective operation would have to be given to the Act and thereby affect the right vested in the respondents at the date of the passing of the Act to the finality of the judgment of the Divisional Bench delivered before that date; the rules of construction of a statute required that only such retrospective operation should be given to it as its language compelled; there was no such language used in section 2(b), which, properly understood, only gave the High Court of the United State jurisdiction over proceedings pending in the High Court of ' a Princely State on the date on which that State was included in the United State; 'in any event the language of section 2(b) would be fully satisfied by giving retrospective operation to section 25 only to the extent of applying it to proceedings pending on the date of inclusion of a State in the United State and not closed by a final judgment passed before the Act came into force.