This plaintiff's second appeal is from the judgment and decree of the Assistant District Judge, Darrang at Tezpur affiraning those of the Munsiff. 2. On being served with Quit India Order No. 19 of 1962 dated 11.1.62 requiring the plaintiff to leave the territory of India within thiry days from the date of receipt thereof, the plaintiff-appellant instituted Title Suit No. 21 of 1971 in the Court of the Sadar Munsiff, Tezpur averring, inter alia, that be is a citizen of India residing at Naharani Tea Estate under Maragapara Police Station in the District of Darrang, Assam that he was born at Gopalganj in the District of Sylhet and Se came to Rangapara in the year 1941 and settled there permanently and has been doing contract work since then ; that he is living in India permanently as a loyal and faithful citizen ; that during the communal disturbance he fled away from Assam to Sylhet ; that thereafter the passport system having been introduced he had to take Pakistani Passport under com­pulsion and he returned to India in the year 1954 and immediately on reaching India he surrendered the Pakistani Passport and started living at Rangapara ; that subsequently he was granted an Indian Passport in 1957 which was valid upto 1962 for a visit to Sylhet ; that he is an Indian National and citizen and he has never lost or renounced his Indian citizen­ship. He prayed for declarations that the Quit India Order was invalid, and that he was an Indian citizen and entitled to live in India forever peacefully without any interference from any quarter ; and for a perpetual injunction against the defendants prohibiting and restraining them from giving effect to the Quit India Order. 3. He prayed for declarations that the Quit India Order was invalid, and that he was an Indian citizen and entitled to live in India forever peacefully without any interference from any quarter ; and for a perpetual injunction against the defendants prohibiting and restraining them from giving effect to the Quit India Order. 3. The respondents, as defendants, resisted the suit by filing written statement stating, inter alia, that the plaintiff was born and brought up at village Majbag under Gopalganj Police Station in the District of Sylhet in East Pakistan where be had permanent establishment ; that the plaintiff came to India in 1953 with a Pakistani Passport and on expiry of the period thereof he went back to Pakistan on 22.9.53 ; that the plaintiff again came to India with another Pakistani Passport and on the expiry of the passport and the visa he neither renewed his passport and the visa nor did he leave the terri­tory of India ; that the plaintiff fraudulently and deceitfully obtained an Indian passport and the said passport was cancel­led by the Government when the fraud was detected ; and that the Quit India Order was valid and that the suit liable to be dismissed. 4. On the pleadings the trial court framed 8 issues. Issue No. 3 was ; "Whether the suit is barred under S. 9(2) of Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 " and issue No. 4 was ; "Whe­ther the suit is barred by limitation'. 5. The appellant, as plaintiff, examined 7 witneses, while the respondents as defendants, examined one witness. Both the parties exhibited a number of documents. 6. The learned trial court, while dismissing the suit, held that the suit was barred by section 9(2) of the Indian Citizen­ship Act, 1955; and that the right to sue accrued on 11.1.62 and the suit was filed on 27.4.71 and as such it was barred under Article 113 of the Limitation Act. On appeal, the lear­ned lower appellate Court upheld both the findings of the trial Court. Hence this second appeal. 7. Mr. On appeal, the lear­ned lower appellate Court upheld both the findings of the trial Court. Hence this second appeal. 7. Mr. J. P. Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that in view of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as 'the Amendment Act', having enlarged the denotation of citizenship with referrence to Assam in its Section 6-A and the appellant's averment having consi­stently been that he is a citizen of India, his status is re­quired to be determined afresh and the appeal mays therefore be remanded to the lower appellate court, if not to the trial court for such determination in light of the provisions of the Amendment Act. 8. Mr. Sk. Chand Mohammad, the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, submits that the plaintiff's suit was dismissed on the grounds of limitation and jurisdiction, and even so, if the appeal is remanded sufficient guidance should be given so that the appeal is decided in light of the Amendment Act. 9. Even though the grounds of dismissal of the suit are bar of jurisdiction under S. 9(2) of the Citizenship Act and bar of limita­tion under the limitation Act, I am of the view that if the appe­llant is found to be a citizen of India under the Amendment Act, both the grounds will be otiose, and injustice may result if the case is not re-examined in light of the new provisions of S. 6-A of the Act, which came into force on 7-12-85. 10. The Amendment Act was passed for the purpose of giving effect to certain provisions of the Memorandum of Set­tlement relating to the foreigners' issue in Assam (Assam Accord) which was laid before the House of Parliament on the 16th day of August, 1985 when this appeal was pending. The Amendment Act received the assent of the President on Dece­mber 7, 1985 and was published in the Gazette of India Extra, Part II, Section 1, dated 7th December, 1985. Para 8 of the Statement of Objects and Reasons thereof states : "3. It is intended that all persons of Indian origin who came to Assam before the 1st January. The Amendment Act received the assent of the President on Dece­mber 7, 1985 and was published in the Gazette of India Extra, Part II, Section 1, dated 7th December, 1985. Para 8 of the Statement of Objects and Reasons thereof states : "3. It is intended that all persons of Indian origin who came to Assam before the 1st January. 1966 (inclu­ding such of those whose names were included in the electoral rolls used for the purpose of General Election to the House of the People held in 1967) and who have been ordinarily resident in Assam ever since shall be deemed to be citizens of India as from the 1st day of January, 1966. Further, every person of Indian origin who came on or after the 1st January, 1966 but before the 25th March, 1971 from territories presently included in Bangladesh and who has been ordinarily resident in Assam ever since and who has been detected in accor­dance with the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 shall, upon registration, be deemed to be a citizen for all purposes as from the date of expiry of a period of ten years from the date of detection as foreigner. It is also in­tended that in the intervening period of 10 years, these persons should not suffer from any other disability vis-a-­vis citizens, excepting the right to vote and that proper record shall be maintained of such persons. To inspire confidence judicial element should be associated to deter­mine eligibility in each and every case under this category". The amendment has inserted a new Section 6-A to the Act. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Sec. 6-A provide : "(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (6) and (7), all persons of Indian origin who came before the 1st day of January, 1966 to Assam from the specified territory (including such of those whose names were included in the electoral rolls used for the purposes of the General Election to the House of the People held in 1967) and who have been ordinarily resident in Assam since the date of their entry into Assam shall be deemed to be citizens of India as from the 1st day of January, 1966. (3) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (6) and (7) every person of Indian origin who : - (a) came to Assam on or after the 1st day of January, 1966 but before the 25th day of March, 1971 from the specified territory ; and (b) has, since the date of his entry into Assam, been ordinarily resident in Assam; and (c) has been detected to be a foreigner ; shall register himself in accordance with the rules made by the Central Government in this behalf under Section 18 with such authority (hereafter in this sub-section refe­rred to as the registering authority) as may be specified in such rules and if his name is included in any elec­toral roll for any Assembly or Parliamentary constituency in force on the date of such detection, his name shall be deleted therefrom." Sub-section (1) (c) of Sec. 6-A defines "specified territory" to mean "the territories included in Bangladesh immediately before the commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985". Under clause (d) thereof, "a person shall be deemed to be of Indian origin, if he, or either of his parents or any of his grandparents was born in undivided India". Under cl. (b) "detec­ted to be a foreigner" means detected to be a foreigner in accordance with the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (31 of 1946), and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 by a Tribunal constituted under the said Order. Under cl. (e) a person shall be deemed to have been detected to be a foreigner on the date on which a Tribunal constitued under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 submits its opinion to the effect that he is a foreig­ner to the officer or authority concerned. Under sub-section (1) of Sec. 6-A "A person registered under sub-section (3) shall have, as from the date on which he has been detected to be foreigner and till the expiry of a period of ten years from that date, the same rights and obligations as a citizen of India (inclu­ding the right to obtain a passport under the Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967), and the obligations connected therewith), but shall not be entitled to have his name included in any elec­toral roll for any Assembly or Parliamentary constituency at any time before the expiry of the said period of ten years". Under sub-section (5) "A person registered under sub-section (3) shall be deemed to be a citizen of India for all purposes as from the date of expiry of a period of ten years from the date on which he has been detected to be a foreigner". Under sub-section (7) "Nothing in sub-sections (2) to (6) shall apply in relation to any person-(a) who, immediately before the commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985, is a citizen of India; (b) who was expelled from India before the commen­cement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985, under the Foreigners Act, 1946 (31 of 1946)". Under sub-section (8) save as otherwise provided in that section, the provisions of S. 6-A shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. Thus a new class of citi­zens has been created in so far as Assam is concerned. This class of citizens enjoy certain rights and are not liable to be deported. 11. The Amendment Act having enlarged the definition of 'citizenship' with reference to Assam, as above, the appellant prays for reconsideration of his status. The question is whe­ther this Court can take notice of the amendment at the second appellate stage. In Shikharchand Jain v. D. J. P. Karini Sabha, AIR 1974 SC 1178 it has been ruled that ordinarily, a suit is tried in all its stages on the cause of action as it existed on the date of its institution, but it is open to a Court, inclu­ding a Court of appeal, to take notice of events which have happened after the institution of the suit and afford relief to the parties in the changed circumstances where it is shown that the relief claimed originally has (1) by reason of subsequent change of circumstances become inappropriate; or (2) where it is necessary to take notice of the changed circumstances in order to shorten the litigation, or (3) to do complete justice between the parties. In Mohanlal Chunilal vs. Tribhovan Hanbhai, AIR 1963 SC 358 at page 361 it was clearly ruled by the Supreme Court that the appellate court was bound to apply the law as it was found on the date of the judgment. In Mohanlal Chunilal vs. Tribhovan Hanbhai, AIR 1963 SC 358 at page 361 it was clearly ruled by the Supreme Court that the appellate court was bound to apply the law as it was found on the date of the judgment. In Gurmalapura Taggina Matada Kotturuiwami vs. Setra Veeravva, AIR 1959 SC 577 it was observed : ' It is well settled that an appellate Court is entitled to take into consideration any change in the law (vide the case of Lachmeshwar Prasad vs. Keshwar lal , 1940 FCR 84=(AIR 1941 FC 5)". This was followed in Jose Da Costa vs. Bascora Sadashiva Sinai Narcornim, AIR 1975 SC 1843 at p. 1849. These rulings were reiterated in Narhari vs. Panna-lal, AIR 1977 SC 164 and in Bal Dosabai vs. Mathurdai, AIR 1980 SC 1334 . In Bai Djsabai (supra) it was clearly stated in para 14 that events and changes in the law occurring during the pendency of an appeal are required to be taken into consi­deration in order to do complete justice between parties so that a futile decree may not be passed. It is also right and nece­ssary that the decree should be so moulded as to accord with the changed statutory situation. The right obtained by a party under a decree cannot be allowed to be defeated by delay in the disposal of the appeal against the decree, if it is possi­ble to save the decree by moulding it to conform to the statu­tes subsequently coming into force. 12. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and decree of the courts below are set aside the case remanded to the Assistant District Judge, Tezpur for disposal in accordance with law taking into consideration the relevant provisions of the Amendment Act, as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months from receipt of the records. The learned Judge may allow the par­ties to adduce additional evidence on prayer of the parties, if considered necessary, for the purpose of proper adjudication of the case in accordance with the provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955 and the rules framed thereunder ; and the relevant provisions of the Constitution of India. Let the records be sent down forthwith. The parties shall appear before the Assis­tant District Judge, Tezpur on 17th August, 1986 to receive directions as to further proceedings in the appeal. 13. In the result this second appeal is allowed, and case remanded.