9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Jurisdiction of Civil Court post amendment in U. P. Act No. 1 of 1951 by U. P. Act No. 28 of 1961. Analysis: 1. The case involved a suit filed in 1953 by the plaintiff for a declaration of sirdari rights, contested by multiple defendants. The trial court decreed the suit in 1963. However, the lower appellate court held that the jurisdiction for such suits had been transferred to revenue courts by the 1956 amendment of the Zamindari Abolition Act, affecting pending suits. The plaintiff appealed to the High Court challenging the jurisdictional issue. 2. The original Section 331(1) of the Zamindari Abolition Act barred civil courts from cognizance of certain matters, but declaratory suits by sirdars were not initially included. The 1956 amendment transferred jurisdiction of such suits to revenue courts, affecting pending cases. The saving clause in the 1956 Act ensured pending suits continued in civil courts despite amendments. 3. Subsequent amendments in 1958 further transferred jurisdiction to revenue courts for various suits, but again, a saving clause protected pending cases. The question arose whether these saving clauses were part of the principal Act, akin to a proviso, as seen in a previous Full Bench decision. 4. The judgment referred to a similar case where a saving clause was deemed part of the principal Act, offsetting the effect of amendments on pending suits. The saving clauses in the Amending Acts acted as exceptions to the transfer of jurisdiction, safeguarding cases pending during the amendments' enforcement. 5. The 1961 Amending Act widened the scope of Section 331(1) to include suits based on causes of action for which relief could be obtained from revenue courts. However, the saving clause from the previous Acts prevailed, ensuring the present suit, a simple declaration suit, remained under the jurisdiction of the civil court. 6. The High Court concluded that the suit filed in 1963 was validly within the jurisdiction of the civil court, unaffected by subsequent amendments. The court answered the referred question in the negative, affirming the civil court's jurisdiction over the pending suit. 7. The judgment clarified the impact of legislative amendments on jurisdictional matters, emphasizing the significance of saving clauses in preserving the rights of parties involved in pending legal proceedings.
|
