JUDGMENT S.D. Singh, J. - This is an application in revision against an order passed by Sri R. B. Lal, Munsif, West Hardoi, remitting certain issues to the Revenue Court for a finding under section 332-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The five issues, though the Munsif refers to them as only four which have been referred by him to the Revenue Court are: - "(1) Whether the plaintiff was a hereditary tenant of the plots in suit up to 30-6-1952. If so, is he a sirdar now ? (2) Whether the plaintiff was an adhivasi of the plots in suit upto 30th October, 1954 ? (a) If so, is he a sirdar ? (4) Whether defendants 4 and 5 are sirdars of the plots in suit as alleged ? (5) Whether defendants 4 and 6 are co-sirdars of the plots in suit along with the plaintiff? If so, its effect ? 2. The Munsif refers to Ch. Raghuraj Narain v. Judicial Officer Ghaziabad, 1959 RD 291 : 1959 ALJ 681 as an authority for the issues being referred to the Revenue Court. It appears that the Munsif referred to this ruling without having a look at it inasmuch as the ruling is an authority for the issues not being referred to the Revenue Court. All the same the question for decision in this revision is whether in view of the changes made in the law under U.P. Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, XVIII of 1956, and the U.P. Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, XXXVII of 1958, the aforesaid issues have to be heard and decided by the Munsif itself or submitted to the revenue Court under Sec. 332-B of the aforesaid Act. 3. Sec. 332-B as it stood prior to the amendment made by the U.P. Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, XVIII of 1956, did not refer to sirdari rights and questions relating to those rights were, therefore, heard and decided by Civil Courts. Under this amending Act, by substituting the words "a sirdar, adhivasi or assami" for the words "an adhivasi or assami" in Sec. 332-B of Act I of 1951, the procedure for the determination of questions relating to sirdari rights was changed, and issues relating to such rights were also, therefore, required to be submitted to the revenue Court for a finding. The question whether the amended section applied to suits which were filed before the Amending Act, XVIII of 1956, came into force, or whether it applied only to suits instituted after its amendment, came to be considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Ram Chandra v. Muneshwar, 1961 ALJ 991 and it has been held that the amendment made in Sec. 332-B of Act I of 1951 is retrospective in effect, and that if a question of sirdari, rights was raised even in a suit filed, before the commencement of Amending Act, the issue in respect of it has to be referred to the revenue Court for a decision. The earlier case Ch. Raghuraj Narain v. Judicial Officer, 1959 RD 291 : 1959 ALJ 681 and also an earlier unreported decision in Ram Lochan Singh v. Lakshmi Shanker, C.R. No. 1492 of 1956 D/d. 6.1.1958, were specifically overruled. If the law had stood as it was after this amendment in 1956, the Munsif would have been right in referring the issues to the Revenue Court for a finding. 4. There has, however, been another amendment in the Act under U.P. Act, XXXVII of 1958. Section 79 of this Act deletes Sec. 332-B of Act I of 1951, with the result that there is no provision now for any issue about sirdari, adhivasi or assami rights being referred to the revenue Courts for decision. The position, therefore, is that if such issues arise for decision in any suit in a Civil Court, they have to be heard and decided by the Civil Court itself like any other issue in the suit. The suit, however, out of which this revision has arisen was filed on 18th July, 1958, while the amending Act XXXVII of 1958 was published in the U.P. Gazette dated 7th. November, 1958. The position, therefore, is that at the time the suit was filed, Sec. 332-B of the Act I of 1951 regulated the procedure for its decision, but by the time the issues were framed, Sec. 332-B had been repealed, and the question which was urged during the hearing of this revision was as to whether it would be the old procedure which was in force when the suit was filed that would apply for the hearing of the suit, or the one which was prescribed under the law during the pendency of the suit. Some reference in this connection may be made to sub-secs. (1) and (2) of Section 87 of the Amending Act, XXXVII of 1958. These two sub-sections read :- "87. (1) Except as provided in Secs. 85 and 86, any amendment made by this Act shall not affect the validity, effect or consequence of anything already done or suffered, or any right, title, obligation or liability already acquired, accrued or incurred or any jurisdiction already exercised, and any proceeding instituted or commenced before any court or authority prior to the commencement of this Act shall, notwithstanding any amendment herein made, continue to be heard and decided by such court or authority. (2) An appeal, review or revision from any suit or proceeding instituted or commenced before any court or authority prior to the commencement of this act shall, notwithstanding any amendment herein made, lie to the Court or authority to which it would have laid if instituted or commenced before the said commencement." Exactly similar provision was made in Section 23 of the Amending Act, XVIII of 1956, and the provisions of that section have been the subject of interpretation in Ram Chandra v. Muneshwar, 1961 ALJ 991 One of the points considered in this case is whether the word "proceeding" used in sub-sec. (1) of Section 23 of the Amending Act, XVIII of 1956, also included suits filed in a Court and it was held that it did not. The same interpretation of the term "proceeding" should apply in the interpretation of Section 87 Act, XXXVII of 1958, and the word "proceeding" as used in sub-sec. (1) of Section 87 of this Act of 1958 should not also include a suit and if that is so, the saving clause incorporated in Section 87 would not apply to suits instituted in Civil Courts. But even if it does, it appears to me that sub-sec. (1) of Section 87 would not, even in that case, mean that the old procedure prescribed under Sec. 332-B should apply to the hearing of suits. All what sub-sec. (1) of Section 87 says is that any proceeding instituted or commenced before any court or authority prior to the commencement of the Act shall, notwithstanding any amendment made in the Act, continue to be heard and decided by such court or authority. All what sub-sec. (1) of Section 87 says is that any proceeding instituted or commenced before any court or authority prior to the commencement of the Act shall, notwithstanding any amendment made in the Act, continue to be heard and decided by such court or authority. All what it means is that if a suit or proceeding (provided the word "proceeding" includes a suit) was instituted in a civil or revenue court under the law as it stood prior to the amendment made by this 1958, Act, and if jurisdiction to entertain such suit or proceeding was taken away by the amendments made under this Act, those suits or proceedings, in spite of such amendment, continue to be heard and decided by the Court in which they were instituted. The present suit was filed in the Court of Munsif and his jurisdiction to entertain, hear and decide the suit remains undisturbed even after the amendments made by Act XXXVII of 1958, and the necessity of the application of the provision of sub-sec. (1) of Section 87 of the Amending Act does not, therefore, arise. 6. A change in the law of procedure always acts with full retrospective effect, unless the amending law itself expresses an intention to the contrary. It is only the amendment in the law relating to vested rights which will not have retrospective effect, unless it is expressly provided under the law. The question came up for consideration before their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Anant Gopal Sheorey v. The State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1958 SC 915 and after considering the arguments advanced before their Lordships, they observed: - "In other words a change in the law of procedure Operate retrospectively and unlike the law relating to vested right is not only prospective." This position regarding the law of procedure would clearly indicate that it will be the procedure as prescribed after the amendments made by the Amending Act, XXXVII of 1958, which would be applicable to the hearing and decision of the suit and not the law as it stood prior to the aforesaid amendment. 7. Even the case Ram Chandra v. Muneshwar, 1961 ALJ 991 leads to the same conclusion. The position under consideration in that case was different. There the suit was instituted before amendments were made in Act, I of 1951, by the Amending Act, XVIII of 1956. 7. Even the case Ram Chandra v. Muneshwar, 1961 ALJ 991 leads to the same conclusion. The position under consideration in that case was different. There the suit was instituted before amendments were made in Act, I of 1951, by the Amending Act, XVIII of 1956. Prior to those amendments Sec. 332-B did not require an issue regarding sirdari rights being referred to the revenue Court. The amendments made in that section under this Act, XVIII of 1956, required that even sirdari questions should be referred to the revenue Court. The suit in that case was filed before the amendments were made in 1956 but issues were referred to the revenue Court under the amended Sec. 332-B and it was held that it was the amended provision which would govern the hearing of the suit. The same principle which governed the decision of this Ram Chandra's case would lead to the conclusion now that it would be the law as amended in 1958 which would be applicable to the hearing of the suit between the parties and that all questions relating to sirdari, adhivasi or asami rights will be decided by the Court in which such questions arise. 8. From that point of view, therefore, the Munsif should not have made a reference to the Revenue Court. 9. It is unfortunate that the opposite parties were not present in this Court and this revision had to be heard ex parte, but the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant placed the whole law before the Court and the case was discussed from all possible points of view. 10. The application in revision is allowed. The order dated 7th, January, 1960, by which the aforesaid issues were referred to the revenue court is set aside. The Munsif will proceed with the hearing of the suit and in doing so will hear and decide these issues himself. The applicant will get his costs from the opposite parties.