JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - Plaintiff is the Appellant against an affirming decision. 2. Plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title to the disputed gold and gold ornaments with other consequential reliefs. It is claimed that Plaintiff and Defendants 2 to 7 belong to the same family though they have separated among themselves and are carrying on separate business. It is claimed that the disputed gold and gold ornaments being to the Plaintiff. In 1977 for the purpose of marriage of her daughter, the Plaintiff desired to raise funds by selling some of the ornaments and accordingly handed over the disputed gold and ornaments to Defendants 2 and 3 who were then running a business in the name and style of M/s. Ramaniklal and Company with a view to find out suitable customers and to sell the gold and ornaments at suitable price. It is claimed that soon after the entrustment of gold and ornaments, the premises of M/s. Ramaniklal & Company were raided by the Central Excise authorities under the Gold Control Act, 1968 and among other articles Plaintiff's box containing primary gold and gold ornaments weighing 2188.900 grams was seized by the Central Excise officials. The Excise authorities di reacted for confiscation of the gold in question and in lieu of confiscation directed that the gold/ornaments could be redeemed by paying fine of Rs. 30,000/-. Even though the Plaintiff had claimed the ornaments, to be her own, her claim was not accepted by the authorities and Plaintiff had filed O.J. C. No. 953 of 1984 in the High Court. The High Court while refusing to interfere with the orders passed under the Gold Control Act observed that it was open to the Petitioner (the present Plaintiff) to establish her right in a competent Court of law. Thereafter the present suit has been filed. 3. In the suit Defendants 2 to 5 were set ex parte. Defendant No. 1 in his written statement has challenged the maintainability of the suit. Defendants 6 and 7 have filed written statement disputing the Plaintiff's claim over the property Among other things, it was pleaded that in view of the provisions contained in the Gold Control Act: the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Defendant No. 1 in his written statement has challenged the maintainability of the suit. Defendants 6 and 7 have filed written statement disputing the Plaintiff's claim over the property Among other things, it was pleaded that in view of the provisions contained in the Gold Control Act: the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Subsequently, on the basis of the application filed by Defendants 6 and 7 under Order 7, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, the courts below held that the suit was not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in Section 84 of the Gold Control Act. 4. In the present appeal Defendants 6 and 7 who are Respondents 6 and 7 while supporting the decisions of the courts below have also submitted that the suit is barred by principle of res judicata as well as barred by limitation. However, since the suit has been dismissed only on the ground of non-maintainability as per Section 84 of the Gold Control Act, the other questions raised by the Respondents are not dealt with. 5. Section 84 of the Gold Control Act before its deletion stood as follows: 84. Finality of orders: Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law,-(a) any order passed by the Administrator the Central Government in revision, (b) subject to such order of the Government or the Administrator, any order passed on appeal, and (c) subject to the final order of the central Government or of the Administrator in revision and the order on appeal, any order of adjudication of confiscation, fine or penalty, or any other decision given or order made under this Act, shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court except in a High Court and except on a question of law. There is no dispute at the Bar that the aforesaid provision of Section 84 has been repealed by Act 44 of 1980 with effect from 21-8-1980. 6. The main contention of the counsel for the Appellant is that in view of the repeal of the provision of Section 84, the courts below were not justified in dismissing the suit by invoking the bar of Section 84. 6. The main contention of the counsel for the Appellant is that in view of the repeal of the provision of Section 84, the courts below were not justified in dismissing the suit by invoking the bar of Section 84. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Defendants-respondents, on the other hand, submitted that in spite of the repeal of Section 84, its effect continued as the proceeding under the Gold Control Act had been initiated while Section 84 was still in force. 7. Section 71 of the Gold Control Act contained in Chapter-XIII lays down provisions relating to confiscation of i gold. However, Section 73 authorises the prescribed authority to give to the owner of the gold an option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation. Chapter-XIV of the Act contains provisions relating to adjudication, appeal and revision. Section 78 provides about such adjudication. Section 80 provides for appeal, whereas Sections 81 and 82 provide the power of revision by the Administrator and the Central Government. Section 84 which is important for this case, is already quoted hereinbefore. There is no dispute that the proceeding had been initiated at a time when Section 84' was in the statute book. The courts below have relied upon the principle that when a proceeding is started under the provisions of an Act which is subsequently repealed, the proceeding and the appeal, revision etcetera, arising from such proceeding are to be continued notwithstanding such repeal, by applying the principle contained in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. There is no dispute over the fact that in view of the provision contained in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, the remedies by way of appeal, revision, etcetera, can be pursued by a party on the basis ot the provisions contained in the repealed Act. The various decisions cited by the counsel for the Respondents to that effect need not be noticed, as the position of law is well-known. In the present case, the question of pursuing the remedies of appeal and revision as envisaged under the Act does not arise for consideration, nor those provisions providing such remedies, such as Sections 80, 81 and 82 have been repealed. The provision contained in Section 84 to the effect that such orders passed by the authorities shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court, has been repealed. The provision contained in Section 84 to the effect that such orders passed by the authorities shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court, has been repealed. The embargo envisaged in Section 84 cannot be considered to be a liability accrued so that such embargo must be continued even after repeal. This is not to suggest that the decision of the authorities under the Act to confiscate the gold/ornaments and giving option to redeem gold/ornaments by paying fine can be challenged. However, the suit which was primarily relating to inter se title of the parties could not have been dismissed by invoking the provision contained in Section 84 which had been repealed by the time the suit was filed. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, I am unable to agree with the views expressed by both the courts below. The dismissal of the suit on the ground that Section 84 stands as a bar is set aside and the suit is required to be disposed of in accordance with law. As already indicated, no other questions including the question of res judicata, bar of limitation raised by the Defendants having been considered by the courts below, those questions are to be considered by the trial court along with other questions. The parties through their counsels are directed to appear before' the trial court on 1st. March, 1999. There will be no order as to costs. Ordered accordingly. Final Result : Dismissed