9911796707
TMI Blog1951 (3) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 80, U. P. Tenancy Act, was amended in such a way that suits even by tenants against treapassera became triable by revenue Courts and consequently the jurisdiction of the civil Court became barred under Section 242, Tenancy Act. 3. The Revenue Court, therefore, returned the cage to the civil Court and the defendant applied to the civil Court pointing out the amendment of the law and praying that no further proceedings be taken by the civil Court, The civil Court overruled this plea and held that it had jurisdiction to dispose of the suit which had, at the time of its institution, been rightly instituted in the civil Court according to the Full Bench decision in Ori Lal v. Ganeshi (1947 Oudh W. N. 42). 4. Thereafter the issue was again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... change in the procedure relating to the sale of land in execution of decrees. In accordance with the provisions of Civil Procedure Code read with a notification issued by Government under Section 68, Civil P. C. on 7-10-1911, the civil Court which passed the decree had authority to sell all immovable property except ancestral estates. In the exercise of this authority, the civil Court had directed the sale of agricultural land which it had held to be self-acquired and ordered the sale to proceed under its own control. While the proceedings were still pending, no sale having taken place, but after the execution application had been made, the Government issued a fresh notification under Section 68, Civil P. C and cancelled the earlier notific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t a change of procedure but the negation of a vested right to obtain relief which had already been put into motion by the institution of a suit. 11. In Abdul Haq v. Pateshwari Prasad Singh AIR1946 All 294 , upon which the learned Advocate for the respondent relied, a Division Bench held that, inspite of a change in the Tenancy law the civil Court still had jurisdiction to dispose of a suit of the nature which it was trying. Obviously, in such a case, no question arose of the return of the plaint to the proper Court because the civil Court was itself the proper Court. 12. It must, therefore, be held that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to proceed, with the trial of this case after the legislature had amended Section 180, U. P. Tena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
