2003 (4) TMI 611 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of amended Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to pending revision petitions.
2. Distinction between the right of appeal and the right of revision.
3. Legislative intent and interpretation of statutory provisions.
4. Impact of procedural amendments on vested rights.
5. Scope of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of amended Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to pending revision petitions:

The primary issue was whether the amendments to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, introduced by the Amendment Act of 1999, applied to revision petitions that were already admitted before the amendment came into effect. The appellants argued that the amendments should not apply to pending petitions, citing Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which generally saves pending proceedings from the effects of amendments. They contended that the pending proceedings were outside the effect of the amendment, even if there was no specific provision saving them, suggesting it was a case of casus omissus.

The court, however, concluded that the legislative intent was clear in not saving pending proceedings under Section 32(2)(i) of the Amendment Act. The amendments to Section 115 were procedural, and no person has a vested right in a course of procedure. Therefore, the High Courts were correct in holding that the revisions were not maintainable under the amended provisions.

2. Distinction between the right of appeal and the right of revision:

The court emphasized the fundamental differences between the right of appeal and the right of revision. It stated that the right of appeal is a substantive right, whereas the right to file a revision under Section 115 is not. Section 115 is essentially a source of power for the High Court to supervise subordinate courts, not a substantive right for litigants to seek relief. The court highlighted that an appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings, whereas revision is a supervisory jurisdiction limited to jurisdictional errors and does not allow for a review of evidence.

3. Legislative intent and interpretation of statutory provisions:

The court stressed the importance of adhering to the plain and unambiguous language of statutes. It noted that the legislature's intent must be gathered from the language used, paying attention to what has been said and what has not been said. The court cannot read anything into a statutory provision that is not explicitly stated. The court also discussed the principles of casus omissus, stating that courts cannot supply omissions in legislation unless there is a clear necessity and reason within the statute itself.

4. Impact of procedural amendments on vested rights:

The court reiterated that procedural changes do not affect vested rights. It cited precedents to assert that no person has a vested right in a particular procedure, and parties must proceed according to the altered procedure unless otherwise stipulated. The court referenced Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. v. Union of India, which held that if a statutory provision is unconditionally omitted without a saving clause, all actions must stop where the omission finds them.

5. Scope of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution:

The appellants sought the court's permission to challenge the orders under Section 227 of the Constitution if the revisions were held non-maintainable. The court clarified that no liberty is necessary for availing remedies under any statute. If the appellants choose to seek remedy under Article 227, it would be dealt with in accordance with the law.

Conclusion:

The appeals were dismissed, and the court upheld the High Courts' decisions that the revision applications were not maintainable under the amended Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court emphasized the clear legislative intent, the procedural nature of the amendments, and the distinction between the right of appeal and the right of revision. The court also highlighted the principles of statutory interpretation and the limited scope of judicial intervention in legislative omissions.