D. K. SETH,, J. Suit No. 1040 of 1969 for recovery of Rs. 1361/- on the basis of a pronote and receipt was filed on 22-8- 1969 before the Munsif, Deoria on the regular side. Originally the suit valued at Rs, l. 000/- or below were cognizable by the Small Causes Court, but by the subsequent amendment the said valuation was en hanced to Rs. 2000/. Thereupon, the defendant took an objection that the suit was not cognizable by the learned Munsif on regular side, and the suit be tried by the Judge, Small pluses Court, who has been conferred the power to try the suit cog nizable by Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. 2. Admittedly, when the suit filed, the suits valued upto Rs. WOO/- were cog nizable by the Small Causes Courts, there fore, on the date of filing of the suit, the learned Munsif had jurisdiction to try the same on the regular use. The subsequent amendment, if not retrospective, it cannot apply to the pending suits unless provision was made for the pending suits that it should be transferred to other Courts. The learned Munsif had held he had jurisdic tion to try the suit vide his order dated 17-2-1979 passed in Original Suit No. 1040 of 1969, against which civil revision No. 87 of 1979 was preferred and by order dated 11-4-1980 the Additional District Judge, Illrd Court, Deoria dismissed the said revision and affirmed the order of the learned Munsif Avhich in my view has been correctly done for the reasons following. 3. Section 25 of the Bengal, Agra, Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887, empowers the State Government to confer upon any subordinate Judge or Munsif the jurisdic tion of the Judge of Small Causes under the provisions of Small Causes Courts Act through notification in the official gazette for the trials cognizable by such Courts up to such value not exceeding Rs. 1000/- in the case of subordinate Judge or Rs. 250/-in the case of Munsif as it thinks fit. This limitation of pecuniary jurisdiction was amended from time to time. Ultimately, through U. P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act 1976, it was extended upto Rs. 2000/- and Rs. 1000/- respectively after the initial limitation was amended earlier to Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 500/- respec tively through the U. P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970. This limitation of pecuniary jurisdiction was amended from time to time. Ultimately, through U. P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act 1976, it was extended upto Rs. 2000/- and Rs. 1000/- respectively after the initial limitation was amended earlier to Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 500/- respec tively through the U. P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970. In the exercise of such power, the Government of U. P. had from time to time conferred on the Mun-sifs and Subordinate Judges the jurisdic tion of Judge of Small Causes Court and also extended the limit of pecuniary juris diction from time to time. Admittedly, the extent of jurisdiction of Small Causes Court at Deoria was Rs. 1000/- on 22- 8-69. It was enhanced to Rs. 2000/- by virtue of said U. P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amend ment) Act 1976. 4. On the basis of such amendment the suit which was being tried by the learned Munsif since the valuation of the suit exceeded the jurisdiction conferred on Small Causes Court on the date of its in stitution, it was contended that after the said amendment, the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court having been enhanced and the suit being valued less than the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court, it is hit by the mischief of Section 16 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act which prohibits trials of a suit cognizable by Small Causes Court within the local limits of such Court. 5. Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code also provides that unless expressly or impliedly the cognizance of particular kind of suit of civil nature is excepted, the civil court has jurisdiction to try such suits. Admittedly, Section 16, excepts trial of a suit cognizable by the Small Causes Court by a Civil Court. 6. In the present case, when the suit was instituted it was not a suit cognizable by the Judge, Small Causes Court and therefore was not hit by Section 16 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court when it was instituted having not been barred, the Civil Court had jurisdic tion to try the same. It is only because of subsequent enhancement of the valuation, the present question has cropped up. 7. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court when it was instituted having not been barred, the Civil Court had jurisdic tion to try the same. It is only because of subsequent enhancement of the valuation, the present question has cropped up. 7. The object of Section 16 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act is to avoid clash of jurisdiction between the Small Causes Courts and ordinary Civil Courts. The bar being expressed in view of Section 9, C. P. C. , civil court cannot assume jurisdiction tto try such suit. But the ques tion remains as to whether a suit so in stituted in a civil court when it had jurisdiction to try, could be said to be ceases of such jurisdiction by reason of enhance ment of the pecuniary jurisdiction of Small Causes Court. 8. Section 16 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act contains a saving clause. It provides that save as expressly provided by this Act or by other enactment for the time being in force, a suit cognizable by Small Causes Court, cannot be tried by any civil court. This saving clause had saved the present suit at hand its initiation in the ordinary Civil Court since it was not then cognizable by a Small Causes Court. 9. Then again the saving clause provides two contingencies. First, it saves the bar of jurisdiction a suit cognizable by a small cause by any other court unless it is expressly so provided in the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. The other is if bar provided under Section 16 is excepted by any other enactment. So far as the second contingency is concerned we shall consider the same at a later stage. The question, that has been raised here, is as to whether the suit should be tried, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the regular side or in the small cause side of the said court or it should be transferred to a court having jurisdiction of trying small causes by reason of enhancement of valua tion of suits cognizable by Small Causes Courts. Admittedly, the suit was instituted as a regular one since on the date of institu tion it was not cognizable as a small causes suit. 10. Admittedly, the suit was instituted as a regular one since on the date of institu tion it was not cognizable as a small causes suit. 10. So far as the express provision as Provided in the Act is concerned, Section 2 of the Act provides that Chapter III and IV of the Act would apply to all courts invested with the jurisdiction of Small Causes Courts. Therefore, by virtue of sub section (1) it is very much applicable in such cases. But sub-section (2) makes an exception that the provision of sub-section (1) will not have any effect in respect of cases instituted prior to the date on which such court had been invested with such jurisdiction. Therefore, by reason of sub section (2) of Section 32, Section 16 does not apply in respect of a pending suit on the investment of small causes jurisdiction upon such court by reason of saving clause contained in Section 16 read with Section 32 (2) of the Act. 11. it is contended of behalf of the petitioner that Section 9 of the U. P Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972 provides transitory provisions while amending Sec tion 15 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act and. Section 25 Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Court Act alongwith U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 to the extent that suits within the nature contemplated under Section 15 (3) of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act read with Section 25 (1) and (2) of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act pending before the Civil Court on the date of commence ment of the said Amendment Act shall stand transferred to the Small Causes Court and be tried accordingly. According to learned Counsel for ths petitioner the said transitory provisions require the present suit to be tried by the Small Causes Court. 12. But this submission is devoid of any merit for two simple reasons. The first is that value of the jurisdiction from Rs. 1000/-to Rs. 2000/- was not enchanced by the U. P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972 but by U. P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act, 1976. The transitory provisions provided in the 1972 Act was confined to the scope and object of the Amendment brought by the 1972 Act. The first is that value of the jurisdiction from Rs. 1000/-to Rs. 2000/- was not enchanced by the U. P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972 but by U. P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act, 1976. The transitory provisions provided in the 1972 Act was confined to the scope and object of the Amendment brought by the 1972 Act. The transitory provisions was in relation to the amendment brought but the Act in which the said provision was provided. The said transitory provision contained in Section 9 of the said 1972 Act cannot be applied in respect of the amendment brought through the 1976 Act. The amendment that has been brought in by 1976 Act in its application would be confined to the provisions contained in 1976 Act itself. The second reason is that by the 1972 Act the purpose of amendment that was brought was in relation to the suits for eviction under the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. Originally suits under U. P. Act XIII of 1972 were suits relating to immovable property which is outside the congnizance of the Small Causes Court Act. By virtue of amendment in U. P. Act XIII of 1972 such suits were sought to be made triable as small causes suit. The statement of object and reason given in 1972 Act itself indicate that the said amendment was brought into being only for the object and reason specified. The said object and reasons nar rates that". . . . . By a recent amendment con tained in Section 20 (6) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act XIII of 1972) an eviction suit against the tenant fate expiration of the tenancy have been taken out from the purview of this excep tion and have been made cognizable by the small cause court. This has been done be cause in such suits the issues are generally simple. . . . . It is now proposed to delete the aforesaid amendment from U. P. Act XIII of 1972, and instead to incorporate a wider amendment directly in the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 so that buildings which are covered by U. P. Act XIII of 1972, may be covered thereby. . . . . . . . . It is now proposed to delete the aforesaid amendment from U. P. Act XIII of 1972, and instead to incorporate a wider amendment directly in the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 so that buildings which are covered by U. P. Act XIII of 1972, may be covered thereby. . . . . " Thus it is apparent that the entire object and purpose of the 1972 amendment was confined to making suits tor eviction in respect of building both covered by U. P. Act XIII of 1972 or otherwise cognizable by the Small Cause,;, Courts. By nature consequent, therefore, the 1972 amend ment was in respect of a particular class or kind of cases, which were originally out side the scope of small causes court, were sought to be brought within the purview of such court. Accordingly the transitory as mentioned under Section 9 of 1972 Act in its application is confined to this par ticular class or kind of cases as con templated in the 1972 Act. 13. On the other hand, 1976 Act, so far as it relates to the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act was confined only to the enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsifs and Judges of the Small Causes Court. It is so indicated in the statement of object and reason of 1976 Act in clause (4) in the following manner namely "it is proposed to raise the fecuniary jurisdiction of Munsifs and udges of the Small Causes Court by suitable amendment in the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act 1887 and the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887. " By Sections 28 and 29 of the said Act effected amendment in Section 25 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act. Nowhere in 1976 Act anything has been provided to make the amendment in its application retrospective. It has never been provided that such amended provision wo aid also become applicable in respect of pending cases. On the other hand, by Section 36 of the 1976 Act, pend ing cases has been excepted from the ap plication of the amended provision of the said Act, as is discussed hereafter. 14. It has never been provided that such amended provision wo aid also become applicable in respect of pending cases. On the other hand, by Section 36 of the 1976 Act, pend ing cases has been excepted from the ap plication of the amended provision of the said Act, as is discussed hereafter. 14. While enhancing valuation through U. P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act 1976 it had provided in Section 36 of the said Act that the civil suit or proceedings to which Code of Civil Pro cedure 1908 applies pending on the date of commencement of the said Act, shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of said Code as amended by the 1976 Act. Because of such specific provisions providing disposal of civil suit pending on the date of commencement of the said Amendment Act, is to be decided in accordance with the Code as amended by the 1976 Act. Therefore, enhancement of jurisdiction by the Civil Laws Amend ment Act will not entail trial of the pending suit which was not cognizable by Small Causes Courts, but for the amendment under the said Act would continue to be decided on the basis of the provisions of the Code as amended by said Civil Laws Amendment Act. 15. Such interpretation finds support through the provisions of Section 32 of Small Causes Court Act which provides that the provisions of Chapter III & IV would apply to the courts invested with the Small Causes Court jurisdiction, While making such provisions in sub-section (1) it had incorporated in sub- section (2) a saving clause providing that nothing in sub-section (1) with respect to the Court invested with the jurisdiction of Small Causes Court, applies to suit instituted or proceedings commenced in those Courts before the date on which they were in vested with that jurisdiction. Therefore, the suit which was instituted on a date before it became cognizable by the Small Causes Courts, it has to be continued on the basis of the procedure that applied on the date of its institution and not on the basis of the provisions made applicable to such suits by reason of amendment to the extent of pecuniary jurisdiction. 16. It is an established principle of law that Procedural Law would not be retrospectively applied unless expressly or impliedly so provided in the amendment. 16. It is an established principle of law that Procedural Law would not be retrospectively applied unless expressly or impliedly so provided in the amendment. It can retrospectively operate only when retrospectively is provided for expressly or impliedly. The U. P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act 1976 had expressly provided that despite such amendment, a cml suit pending before civil court would continue to be proceeded by the civil court but would be governed by the Code as amended by 1976 Act, thereby excluding the application of enhanced pecuniary jurisdiction. Or in other words, reptrospectivity of cognizance by Small Causes Court by reason of the said amend ment was expressly excluded in respect of pending suit before the Civil Court which became cognizable by virtue of the amend ment and thereby providing for its con tinuance according to the procedure of the Code as amended by 1976 Act. Similarly, Section 2 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act excludes the application of Chapter III and IV of the said Act in respect of suits instituted or proceedings commenced before the jurisdictions is conferred such Courts. Cognizance of a suit which was not being barred either under Section 9 of the Code or Section 16 of the Small Causes Courts Act at the time of institution, does not cease to be non-cognizable by Small Causes Court by reason of subsequent amendment in the pecuniary jurisdiction for respectivity and particularly when express exclusion provided in U. P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act 1976. 17. Scope of Section 32 (2) of Provin cial Small Causes Courts Act came under consideratioribefore this Court in the case of Jagmohan Lal v. Lakha, (1911) 9 I. C. 264. Concurring with the said decision in the case of Bindesri and another v. Ganga Prasad, AIR 1919 Alld 55, it was held by this Court that a suit which was instituted as an ordinary suit by virtue of Section 32 (2) has to be tried as a regular suit despite the incumbent trying the suit subsequently invested with Small Cause Courts which was absent when the suit was instituted. The learned Single Judge in the said case has relied the decision in the cases of Hari Kamayya v. Hari Venkayya, (Madt&s) (1903) 26 Mad 212 (EB.) ; Sambhu Dhanajiv. Ram Vithu (Bombay), (1904) 28 Bom. The learned Single Judge in the said case has relied the decision in the cases of Hari Kamayya v. Hari Venkayya, (Madt&s) (1903) 26 Mad 212 (EB.) ; Sambhu Dhanajiv. Ram Vithu (Bombay), (1904) 28 Bom. 244; Mahima Chandra Sirdar v. Kali Mondol (Calcutta), (1908) 12 C. W. N. 167. In the said case, the fact were that the Munsif at Mirzapur invested with Small Causes Courts jurisdiction was on leave. The officiating Munsif was not vested with the jurisdiction of Small Causes Court. The suit was instituted during such of ficiating period. By the time when the suit was tried, the permanent Munsif came back from leave. He tried the suit which was cognizable by Small Causes court despite being invested with the jurisdic tion of Small Causes Court as a regular suit. While defending the action of the learned Munsif, this Court had held that "the suit was filed while his locum-tenens, who was not invested with the small cause court powers, was carrying on, and conse quently under the provisions of Section 32, sub-section (2) Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, the Court thought that it was the duty of the Munsif who finally dealt with the case to try the case as a regular suit. The ratio decided in the case ofjag-mohan Lai (supra) was exactly in point. 18. In the present case also the facts are little wider than that of the said case. Here the suit when instituted was not cog nizable by Small Cause Courts and become cognizable only by reason of enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction which is protected not only by reason of Section 32 (2) of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act but also by reason of Section 36 of 1976 Act making express provision therefor. 19. A Division Bench of Patna High Court in the case of Ugrah Singhv. Motihari Co Ltd, AIR 1919 Patna 376, had taken the same view. In the said case when the suit was instituted the incumbent was not in vested with thesmall Causes Court power. Subsequently on his transfer the incum bent who replaced him had small causes court power. Admittedly the suit when instituted was cognizable by small causes court. Motihari Co Ltd, AIR 1919 Patna 376, had taken the same view. In the said case when the suit was instituted the incumbent was not in vested with thesmall Causes Court power. Subsequently on his transfer the incum bent who replaced him had small causes court power. Admittedly the suit when instituted was cognizable by small causes court. On such fact the Division Bench of the Patna High Court has held that by reason of Section 32 (2) of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act" the suits must be tried as money suit. . . ". Therefore, the court had set aside the order of the learned Judge transferring the suit to be tried as a Small Causes Court suit on the ground that " Section 32 (2) Provincial Small Causes Courts Act is a bar to their trial as Small Cause Court suits. The Division Bench had relied on the decision in the case ofmahima Chandra Sirdar (supra ). 20. In the case of Sambhu Dhanaji (supra) it was held by the Bonbay High Court that by virtue of Section 32 (2) of Act 9/1887, a suit instituted as a regular suit above Rs. 50/- when the subordinate Judge Small Causes Courts has power upto Rs. 50, which was subsequently raised to Rs. 100/- but before the suit came up for hear ing, was tried as a regular suit, that such a , suit is excepted. In the said case, it was observed that "it was necessary that the Judge should, before the institution of the suit, be invested with Small Cause Courts jurisdiction entitling him to hear the particular suit. Following the said judgment, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Venkartaraman Rama Hegde Kanni and other v. Baburaya Venkatesh Prabhu, AIR 1923 Bombay 454, took the same view on the facts when the suit was instituted the learned court had no Small Causes power but when the suit came up for trial it was decided as a regular suit by a Judge who had small cause courts power upto the extent of valuation of the suit. 21. 21. In the case of Dhananjay Das and others v. Ram Chandra Das, AIR 1927 Calcutta 388, it was held by the Calcutta High Court that sub-section (2) of Section 32 is applicable to the case where the same officer who originally entertained the suit is subsequently vested with small causes court power or with increased powers, and the cases which have been referred to are cases of that description where, for ex ample, an officer having small causes court powers of smaller denomination is sub sequently empowered with greater powers. This decision of a single Judge had again relied on the decision in the case of Mahima Chandra Sirdar, Calcutta (supra ). 22. In Radha Kant Missir v. Puma Chandra Ttipathi, AIR 1930 Patna 270, the same view was taken by the Patna High Court on the fact that at the time of institu tion of the suit the same was not cognizable by Small Causes Courts but before the trial the Munsif, who tried the suit, had jurisdic tion of small causes court to the extent of the value of the suit but was tried as a regular suit. Relying on the decision in the case ofugrah Singh (supra),hari Kamayya (supra) and Bindesri (supra) it was held that by reason of Section 32 (2) such suit should be tried as a regular suit. 23. In the case of Hichha Mali v. Him Mali, AIR 1934 Patna 504, it was held by the Patna High Court that Section 16 does not apply to a suit already instituted in another court at a time when the latter court has jurisdiction to entertain it. A suit though of the kind cognizable by a court of small causes is not itself so cognizable after another court had lawfully taken cog nizance of it. 24. In the case of Puthiyamatathum-mal Peringati Cheria Mammad v. Puthiyamathummal Peringati Mammad and others, AIR 1935 Madras 284, the Madras High Court had followed the decision in the case of Hari Kammayya (supra), Sambu Dhanaji (supra), and enkataraman (supra ). 25. In Mohesh Chandra Mali v. Gangamayee Mazumbar, AIR 1935 Calcutta 56 the Calcutta High Court had also taken the same view that the court had jurisdiction to try such suit on the regular side. 26. 25. In Mohesh Chandra Mali v. Gangamayee Mazumbar, AIR 1935 Calcutta 56 the Calcutta High Court had also taken the same view that the court had jurisdiction to try such suit on the regular side. 26. In the case of Bande Ali v. Hussan Bhai, AIR 1937 Nagpur 201, it was held by the Nagpur Bench following the case of Bindesri (supra), Hari Kamayya (supra), Sambhu Dhanaji (supra), Venkataraman (supra) and Radha Kant (supra) that the suit instituted in a court without having small causes power is to be tried as a regular suit even if it is transferred to a small causes court by reason of Section 32 (2) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. 27. In the case of Madam Venkata Subbaramia Setty v. V. K. Hari Rao, AIR 1957 A. P. 133, by Andhra High Court it was held that by reason of Section 32 (2) the jurisdiction of the court is set for deciding a case as a regular suit which was instituted as such when there was no court in the area having small causes jurisdiction. 28. The question was also considered in the case of Sugan Chandjain v. Pradeep Kumar and another, AIR 1976 Alld. 394, by this court wherein thesameview was taken to the extent that sub-section 32 (2) of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act points out that suits instituted or proceedings commenced in Courts before the jurisdic tion to try the cases as Judge Small Causes conferred on them have to be tried on the regular side notwithstanding the fact that subsequently the jurisdiction is conferred on them to try on the Small Causes Court side. 29. In the case of Madan Lai v. Ram Swarup and another, AIR 1978 Alld. 542, the question as to whether there is any conflict between the Section 9 of 1972 Act and Section 32 (2) of Provincial Small Causes Courts Act was decided by this Court. In the said case it was held that there was no conflict in the two provisions. It operates on two different fields. 30. 542, the question as to whether there is any conflict between the Section 9 of 1972 Act and Section 32 (2) of Provincial Small Causes Courts Act was decided by this Court. In the said case it was held that there was no conflict in the two provisions. It operates on two different fields. 30. In the case of Abrarun Nabi v. Smt. Jamila Begum, 1979 ALJ NOC 80 it was held by this court that notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary in Sec tion 32 (2) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act would stand transferred to the Court of Small Causes thorugh instituted as a Civil Suit of Section 9 of 1972 Act. This is justified because of the fact that suit for ejectment so brought within the purview of Small Causes Court Act by virtue of 1972 Act providing the transitory provision in Section 9 which is again a saving clause within the meaning of Sec tion 16 by some other enactment. Tran sitory provisions provided in Section 9 of 1972 Act carved out an exception to Sec tion 32 (2) of the Act. Section 16 in its saving clause conceived of two situations. One if it is conceived by the provisions of this Act and the other by any other enact ment. Therefore, it is saved by Section 32 (2) which provides an exception by a spe cial enactment providing special provisions for such a situation. Therefore, a particular class or kind of case, which was not within the ambit of such court was for the first time brought within the purview of Small Causes Court creating special provision through express legislative in tent that stands at a distinguished footing from an ordinary suit covered under Sec tion 32 (2) by reason of the special enact ment creating special jurisdiction provid ing special provision for retrospectivity in respect of pending litigation. 31. On the analogy of reasons given in the said decision, having regard to Section 32 of the Small Causes Courts Act and Section 36 of the U. P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act, a suit which was non- cognizable by the Small Causes Court instituted in civil court such suit is to be tried as an ordinary suit in regular side. In such case when the power of Munsif is enhanced with regard to cognizance of small causes suits, he may continue to try suits instituted prior to such enhancement on the regular side. 32. In that view of the matter, lam not inclined to interfere with the order im pugned. The writ petition fails and is ac cordingly dismissed and the interim order dated 15-9-1980 is discharged. 33. Since the suit pertains to the year 1969, it is desirable and expected that the learned court below shall if possible dis pose of the suit within a period of one year from the date a certified copy of this order is communicated to the learned Court below. 34. Registry is directed to communi cate this order to the court below within a period of four weeks. Learned Court below shall decide the case after giving notice and opportunity to both the parties and in accordance with law. Appeal accordingly. .