TMI Blog1965 (2) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the consent of the plaintiff. (2.)On the above pleas the trial Court framed several issues and remitted an issue about Bhumidhari right to the competent Civil Court. The Civil Court held that the plaintiff was the Bhumidhar of the land in suit and this finding was accepted by the Assistant Collector in this case. Having held that the plaintiff was the Bhumidhar the trial Court found that the defendants were trespassers and that the trespass started in January 1956, as such he found the suit to be within time and decreed the suit for ejectment and recovery of ₹ 300 as damages. The defendants went up in appeal against this decision but the same was affirmed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Moradabad by this judgment dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was cognizable by the revenue Court and the section itself mentions that the plaintiff could get the relief of ejectment as well as damages against the defendants I do not think that mere non-mention of the words and damages would disentitle the plaintiff from getting the relief of damages from the revenue Court. The addition of the words and damages made subsequently is by way of abundant caution. The suit under Section 209 was within the jurisdiction of the revenue Court. In my opinion the revenue Court could grant the relief or damages as claimed. Now at this time when this point has been raised before me the revenue Court admittedly has jurisdiction to pass a decree for damages. Anomalou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of this amendment on Section 209. Ordinarily an amendment in procedural law is retrospective unless the giving of its effect would prejudice the rights established under the old law. In Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes 1962 edition at page 217 it has been stated the general principle however seems to be that alterations in procedure are retrospective unless there be some good reason against it. Then at page 219 we find stated as follows: But a new procedure would be presumably inapplicable where its application would prejudice rights established under the old law or would involve a breach of faith between the parties in the case of Chuni Lal Sowcar v. Srinivas Rao, AIR 1946 Madras 262 the petitioner gave the requisite notice but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the stage at which the particular case has reached. If a suit is in its initial stages and pending before the trial Court and at that time there is a change in the procedure the changed procedure should be followed for it would not affect the right of any person at that stage, but if a party has already obtained certain right under a decree it would be very unfair to disturb that right and direct the suitor to start afresh from the trial stage for no fault of his. A distinction has to be made between a suit and an appeal at the time when the amending Act of 1962 was passed. It was made obligatory to implead U. P. Slate as a party to the suit. It would not necessarily follow that U. P. State was a necessary party to the appeal as well, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
