1957 (11) TMI 34 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the revision application under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act post-amendment.
2. Retrospective application of the amendment to Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act.
3. Vested rights and the effect of the amendment on such rights.
4. Jurisdiction of the High Court versus the District Judge post-amendment.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Revision Application:
The application for revision was filed under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act after the amendment by the U.P. Legislature, which substituted "the District Judge" for "the High Court." The amendment came into force on 4-6-1957, and the application was filed on 27-7-1957. The opposite party contended that the application should have been filed in the District Judge's Court, not the High Court. It was argued by the applicant that the right to file a revision in the High Court remained unaffected by the amendment, as the suit was instituted and decreed before the amendment.

2. Retrospective Application of the Amendment:
The court noted that the Amendment Act did not specify its effect on cases instituted or decided before it came into force. The law in force on 27-7-1957 was that the District Judge had the power to revise the order, and there was no law empowering the High Court to do so. The court emphasized that the amendment's coming into force on 4-6-1957 meant that from that date, the District Judge had the power to call for and revise cases decided by the Court of Small Causes.

3. Vested Rights and the Effect of the Amendment:
The court discussed Section 6 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, which deals with the effect of repeal of Acts and, by analogy, amendments. The court held that the amendment involved both the repeal of the provision empowering the High Court and the enactment of a new provision empowering the District Judge. The court referred to the Supreme Court ruling in Indra Sohan Lal v. Custodian of Evacuee Property, Delhi, which stated that Section 6 applies to repeals followed by fresh legislation. The court concluded that the applicant did not have a vested right to apply for revision in the High Court, as no such right existed inherently or by statute.

4. Jurisdiction of the High Court versus the District Judge:
The court clarified that Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act and Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure conferred jurisdiction upon the High Court to revise decisions of inferior courts but did not confer any right upon a suitor to require such revision. The court stated that the revisional jurisdiction is discretionary and not a matter of right for the suitor. The court further noted that the amendment did not affect any vested right as no such right existed to apply for revision in the High Court. The court also highlighted that the change in forum from the High Court to the District Judge did not affect the applicant's right to apply for revision; it only changed the authority to which the application should be made.

Conclusion:
The court held that the application for revision could not be granted by the High Court due to the amendment, which vested the power of revision in the District Judge. The court dismissed the application, with no orders about costs. The judgment was concurred by both judges, M.C. Desai and Mirza Nasir Ullah Beg.