9911796707
TMI Blog1957 (11) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the word itself and he for it . The U. P. Act received the President's assent on 30-5-1957 and was published in the Gazette of 4-6-1957. It was to come into force at once; so it came into force on 4-6-1957. The present application was filed in this Court on 27-7-1957 and a preliminary objection has been raised by the opposite party to its maintainability. The opposite party pleads that after the amendment of Section 25 no application for revision can be filed in this Court and that this application ought to have been filed in the Court of the District Judge. In reply it was contended by the applicant that on the date on which the suit was instituted and on the date on which it was decreed against it, an application for revision could have been filed in this Court and that the right of the party to file an application in this Court remained unaffected by the subsequent amendment. It is not in dispute that if the case is governed by the law in force on the date on which the application was filed, it could not be filed in this Court and ought to have been filed in the District Judge's Court and that if it is governed by the law in force at the time of the institu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it involves repeal, the effect of the repeal is governed by the provisions of Section 6. In Danmal Parshotamdas v. Baburam Chhotelal AIR1936All3 ; Sulaiman C. J. said at page 7 : It seems that Section 6 (e) would apply to those cases only where a previous law has been simply repealed and there is no fresh legislation to take its place. Where an old law has been merely repealed, then the repeal Would not affect any previous right acquired nor would it even affect a suit instituted subsequently in respect of a right previously so acquired. But where there is a new law which not only repeals the old law, but is substituted in place of the old law, Section 6 (e), General Clauses Act, is not applicable, and we would have to fall back on the provisions of the new Act itself. With great respect I cannot agree with this dictum. Section 6 speaks merely of repeal of an Act and it would be unjustifiable for us to say that it refers to a particular repeal i.e. repeal not followed by re-enactment. The opening words of Section 6 itself lay down that the provisions of the repealing Act will over-ride the effect of repeal stated in the section; it is, therefore, not correct to say th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted by the amendment must be in respect of a right, privilege or obligation acquired or incurred before the amendment; such a remedy may be enforced, and such a legal proceeding may be continued and concluded, as if the amending Act had not been passed. 4. The most important question is whether any right or privilege was acquired by, or had accrued in favour of, the applicant before the amendment. It is settled beyond controversy that a right to an appeal is a right that vests in a suitor on the date on which he files a suit or a suit is filed against him and that it cannot be taken away by a subsequent legislation except by using appropriate language. The existence of a vested right to appeal was recognised by the Supreme Court in Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. v. State of M. P. 1983(13)ELT1277(SC) . An appeal is however different from an application for revision such as one under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act or, under Section 115, C. P. C. A right to appeal vests in a suitor on the date of the institution of the suit only if the right has been conferred upon him by a statute because a right to appeal is a statutory right and not an inherent right of a suitor. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... awing any right of a suitor. No period of limitation is prescribed for an application in revision either under Section 115, C. P. C. or Section 25, Small Cause Courts Act. The reason is obvious; neither of the two provisions confers any right to apply and no question of limitation would arise if no act is contemplated or required to be done by a party. The fact that no limitation has been prescribed means that there is no right to apply for revision; the law of limitation prescribes periods of limitation for enforcement of all rights. 5. We were referred to some authorities which seem to lay down that a party has a right to apply in revision or that a right of appeal includes a right to apply in revision. One of them is Nagendra Nath v. Suresh Chandra, in which the question for decision was whether under Article 182 of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation for execution of the decree will begin to run from the date of the order in revision by the High Court. The words used in Article 182 are that where there has been an appeal, it begins to run from the date of the final decree or order of the appellate Court. Sir Dinshah Mulla delivering the opinion of the Board obser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or another, in this sense it can be said that everybody has a right to make an application. But as pointed out above, a person cannot have a right unless another person has a corresponding duty or liability and the Small Cause Courts Act does not confer any right to apply for revision under Section 25. The suit there was tried as a regular suit and, therefore, the party could not approach the High Court with an application for revision as he could, if it had been tried as a Small Cause Court suit and this is all that the learned Judge meant to say. In Sankata Frasad v. Ram Kushi Devi it was observed that if an order is passed under the Oudh Rent Act, when it was in force, the course of appeal and also of a revision application will be governed by that Act. I respectfully disagree with the implied rule that a litigant has a vested right to apply for revision. 6. The revisionary jurisdiction is discretionary; the High Court may revise an order of an inferior Court if it thinks fit to do so and is not required by any law to do so in specified circumstances. The law that confers the power to revise an order does not specify the circumstances in which it must be exercised. It is, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... greater privilege to apply to the High Court for revision than any person has to approach any Court with an application. 11. By holding that since the enforcement of the Amendment Act only a District Judge has the power to revise an order of a Court of Small Causes, we are not at all giving, what is called retrospective effect to the Amendment Act. The Amendment Act is in force and we are applying its provisions after its enforcement. An Act is given retrospective effect when it provides that as at a past date the law shall be taken to have been that which it was not; vide South Australian Land Mortgage and Agency Co. Ltd. v. The King 30 CLR 523 (J). Where an Act lays down that if a certain condition is fulfilled a certain act can be done, the question will arise whether the condition is required to be fulfilled after the enforcement of the Act or its fulfilment before its enforcement would do; no such question arises in the case before us. The provision of Section 25 is not that if a Court of Small Causes passes a decree or final order, the District Judge may call for the record etc., the exercise of the power by the District Judge is not made dependent upon the fulfilment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
