9911796707
TMI Blog1958 (1) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecision to an earlier decision of a Division Bench dated 1st of November 1957 in New Singhal Dal Mill v. Finn Sheo Prasad Jainti Prasad, Civil Revn. No. 867 of 1957 : (AIR 1958 All 404) (A). It was urged that in view of Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act as amended by U. P. Act 17 of 1957, the High Court must after 4-6-1957 return all applications pending before it for presentation to the Court of the District Judge. That was the order passed in Damodar Das v. Raghubir Saran, Civil Revn. No. 789 of 1950 (All) (B). In the earlier case of the New Singhal Dal Mill v. Firm Sheo Prasad Jainti Prasad, Civil Revn. No. 867 of 1957: (AIR 1958 All 404) (A), the application in revision had been filed after 4th of June, 1957 and the question how the applications filed before that date should be dealt with in view of the amendment of the section did not arise for decision. Certain observations were however made by the Division Bench which decided that case and those observations were utilised by the Single Judge who decided the later case in support of his view. As the question was of considerable importance and the decision on it was likely to affect a large number of li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hall not (b) affect ...... anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or (c) affect any right, privilege, obligation, or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or (e) affect any remedy, or any investigation or legal proceeding commenced before the repealing Act shall have come into operation in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability .... as aforesaid. The Court held that Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act conferred no right or privilege on any person within the meaning of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, and that accordingly that section will not operate to save the revisional jurisdiction of this Court in the case of application presented to it on or after 4th June, 1957. The question of the effect of the Amending Act on the Court's jurisdiction in respect of applications in revision which had been filed but which had not been disposed of before that date arose in Damodar Das v. Raghubir Saran, Civil Revn. No. 7.89 of 1950, D/- 18-11-1957 (All) (B). In that case Desai J., held that in view of the decision in New Singhal Dal Mill case (A), the Court had no jurisdiction and directed that the applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit, and although in a popular sense an aggrieved litigant may have a right to approach the Court with the request that it should exercise its revisional powers, that right cannot possibly, in my judgment amount to a right accrued within the meaning of Section 25. Everyone has in one sense the right to do a thing which the law does not forbid, but the right referred to in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act must be a right which has accrued under a repealed Act. 'Privilege' is defined in Wharton's Law Lexicon as an exceptional right or advantage , and I am unable to see that Section 25 of the repealed Act confers a special advantage on anyone. And if no right or privilege accrues or is acquired under a repealed Act then it appears to me to be clear that neither Clause (c) nor Clause (e) (which refers to any remedy, investigation or legal proceeding commenced under the repealed Act in respect, inter alia, of any such right or privilege) can have any application. Nor do I think that the position is altered by the fact that the Court may have admitted an application in revision and directed the issue of notice to the oppos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ily have done) to avoid the doubts which have arisen as to whether the High Court should continue to possess jurisdiction to hear applications in revision filed before the amending Act came into force and were pending at that time. The amount in dispute in cases which come before a Court of Small Causes is usually small and the litigant in those Courts is usually poor. It seems to me to be an act of injustice to require such litigants who have at a time when it was the settled practice to do so filed applications in revision in this Court, engaged counsel and paid the process fees for the issue of notice, to commence proceedings over again in another Court; and unless I am compelled to do so I cannot think that such was the intention of the Legislature. In the case of all such applications as were pending on the date on which the amending Act came into force it was (save in the case of applications filed shortly before that date) the delay of the Court, and no fault of the litigant, that deprived the latter of judgment before the amending Act became law. I do not think that the Legislature intended the amending Act to involve unnecessary hardship and I am not satisfied tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of Section 6 of the U. P. General Clauses Act. Then there are statutes in which there is, in addition, the provision for seeking a remedy or for starting investigation or legal proceeding in respect of the right, privilege, etc. If such a statute is amended or repealed, the right, privilege, etc. remains unaffected under Clause (c) of Section 6 of the U. P. General: Clauses Act, whereas the remedy, investigation or legal proceeding already commenced before the repealing or amending Act comes into force remains unaffected under Clause (e) of Section 6 of the U. P. General Clauses Act. Then there are statutes which deal only with the remedy, investigation or legal proceeding in respect of a right, privilege etc. but the right, privilege etc. is acquired, accrues or is incurred under some other statute or under common law. It would appear to be anomalous that, in a case where both the accrual of the right as well as the remedy or legal proceeding are provided in the same statute, both should remain unaffected as a result of the amending or repealing Act; whereas, in a case where the right has accrued under a statute which is not amended or repealed at all but the remedy or legal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
