9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Jurisdiction of civil court post-amendment in the law of procedure. Analysis: The case involved a dispute between the respondent, claiming to be a hereditary tenant, and the appellant, who claimed to be a sub-tenant of a plot of land. Initially, the suit was filed in the civil court, but due to an amendment in Section 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, suits of this nature became triable by revenue courts, barring the jurisdiction of the civil court. The issue arose regarding the effect of this amendment on the pending suit. The appellant contended that the civil court lacked jurisdiction to proceed with the suit post-amendment, as per the principle that changes in procedural laws have immediate effect. This principle was supported by legal references such as Naqi Ahmad v. Shiv Shankar Lal and Amir Haider v. Babbu Lal. The court emphasized that vested rights are not affected by changes in procedure. Comparative cases were cited to support the decision. In the case of United Provinces v. Mt. Atiqa Begam, it was held that changes depriving a party of the right to sue could not affect pending suits. However, in Abdul Haq v. Pateshwari Prasad Singh, it was established that the civil court retained jurisdiction in certain cases even after amendments in tenancy laws. Ultimately, the court held that the civil court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the trial after the legislative amendment. The appeal was allowed, decrees of the lower courts were set aside, and the case was remanded to the trial court with directions to return the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the appropriate court. The appellant was awarded costs for all proceedings.
|
