Case: Mohd. Idris &amp; Others Vs. Sat Narain

are made partly retrospective and partly not and considerable time is spent in trying to ascertain which part of the original Act survives and to what extent. We are concerned with a number of sections which have undergone changes again and again and we shall now attempt to examine what the position vis a vis the suit pending before the Munsif was, as a result of the enacting of the Abolition Act and its rumerous amendments. 7. This suit was filed on May 27, 1952 when the Abolition Act was not on the statute book. When the Abolition Act was passed it did not repeal the U.P. Agriculturists Relief Act. Both the Acts, therefore, continued on the statute book till July 12, 1958. On that date Act XVI of 1953 was passed. Section 67 of that Act repealed the U. P. Agriculturists Relief Act. While repealing the Act it was not stated whether the repeal was to operate retrospectively or not but by S. 1(2) the amending Act itself was deemed to have come into force from the first day of July, 1952 that is to say, simultaneously with the Abolition Act. It may, therefore, be assumed that the U.P. Agriculturists Relief Act was also repealed retrospectively from July 1, 1952. The question is; whether the right of the plaintiff to continue the suit under the old law was in any way impaired. Section 6 of the U. P. General Clauses Act lays down the effect of repeal and it is stated there as follows:- 6. Effect of repeal, shall Where any Uttar Pradesh Act repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not- * * * * * (c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accused or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or * * * * * (e) affect any remedy, or any investigation or legal proceeding commenced before the repealing Act shall have come into operation in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid; and any such remedy may be enforced and any such investigation or legal proceedings may be continued and concluded; and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment imposed as if the repealing Act had not been passed. The question is whether a different intention appears in either the Abolition Act or the amending Act XVI of 1953, for otherwise the old proceeding could continue before the Munsif. There is nothing in the Abolition Act which takes away the right of suit in respect of a pending action. If there be any doubt, it is removed when we consider that the U. P. Agriculturists Relief Act was repealed retrospectively from July 1, 1952 only and it is not, therefore, possible to give the repeal further retrospectivity so as to affect a suit pending from before that date. The jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector was itself created from July 1, 1952 and there is no provision in the Abolition Act that pending cases were to stand transferred to the Assistant Collector for disposal. Such provisions are commonly found in a statute which takes away the jurisdiction of one court and confers it on another. From these two circumstances it is to be inferred that if there is at all any expression of intention, it is to keep S. 6 of the General Clauses Act applicable to pending litigation. The doubt, if any be left, is further removed if we consider a later amending Act, namely, Amending Act XVIII of 1956. By that Act Schedule II, which created the jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector in suits for ejectment of asamis was replaced by another Schedule. The entry relating to suits for ejectment of asamis, however, remained the same. But S. 23 of the amending Act of 1956 created a special saving which reads as follows:- 23. Saving.- (i) Any amendment made by this Act shall not affect the validity, invalidity, effect or consequence of anything already done or suffered, or any right, title, obligation or liability already acquired, accrued or incurred or any jurisdiction already exercised, and any proceeding instituted or commenced before any court or authority prior to the commencement of this Act shall, notwithstanding any amendment herein made, continue to be heard and decided by such court or authority. (ii) An appeal, review or revision from any suit or proceeding instituted or commenced before any court or authority prior to the commencement of this Act shall, notwithstanding any amendment herein made, lie to the Court or authority to which it would have laid if instituted or commenced before the said commencement. The addition of this section clearly shows that by the conferral of the jurisdiction upon the Assistant Collector it was not intended to upset litigation pending before appropriate authorities when the Abolition Act came into force. Section 23 in terms must apply to the present case, because if it had remained pending before the Munsif till 1956, it is clear, the jurisdiction of the Munsif would not have been ousted. Although it was not pending before the Munsif it was pending before the appellate Court when the 1956 amendment Act was passed. It follows, therefore, that to such a suit the provisions of Schedule II read with S. 200 of the Abolition Act cannot be applied because the Legislature has in 1956 said expressly what was implict before, namely, that pending actions would be governed by the old law as if the new law had not been passed. In our judgment, therefore, the proceedings before the Munsif were with jurisdiction because they were not affected by the passing of the Abolition Act or the amending Act, 1953, regard being had to the provisions of S. 6 of the U.P. General Clauses Act in the first instance and more so in view of the provisions of S. 23 of the amending Act, 1956 which came before the proceedings between the parties had finally terminated.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]The question which is raised in this appeal is whether after this was done, the suit which was still pending, could continue before the Munsiff and on the application under the U. P. Agriculturists Relief Act. In support of their case the appellants contended that the ejectment of an assami or a Sirdar can only be under the provisions of the Abolition Act and no other law. The appellants claim to have become asamis by reason of the provisions of the Abolition Act although they had claimed in the High Court and the courts below that they had become Sirdars. We have, therefore, to consider in this appeal what was the status of the representatives of the mortgagor on the one hand and of the mortgagee on the other, and then to decide whether the Munsif was competent to pass the decree for redemption and to order the ejectment of the present appellants. It may be stated at once that we declined to hear arguments on the other pleas of the appellants which have now been concurrently rejected in the first two courtsThe addition of this section clearly shows that by the conferral of the jurisdiction upon the Assistant Collector it was not intended to upset litigation pending before appropriate authorities when the Abolition Act came into force. Section 23 in terms must apply to the present case, because if it had remained pending before the Munsif till 1956, it is clear, the jurisdiction of the Munsif would not have been ousted. Although it was not pending before the Munsif it was pending before the appellate Court when the 1956 amendment Act was passed. It follows, therefore, that to such a suit the provisions of Schedule II read with S. 200 of the Abolition Act cannot be applied because the Legislature has in 1956 said expressly what was implict before, namely, that pending actions would be governed by the old law as if the new law had not been passed. In our judgment, therefore, the proceedings before the Munsif were with jurisdiction because they were not affected by the passing of the Abolition Act or the amending Act, 1953, regard being had to the provisions of S. 6 of the U.P. General Clauses Act in the first instance and more so in view of the provisions of S. 23 of the amending Act, 1956 which came before the proceedings between the parties had finally terminated.