Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1478 (ALL)

Lallan v. Special Judge Jaunpur

2002-10-09

B.K.RATHI

body2002
JUDGMENT : - B.K. Rathi, J. I have heard Shri C. P. Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the applicant. 2. REQUEST is for transfer of Civil Revision No. 342 of 1999 pending in the Court of Special Judge, Jaunpur to High Court. The request has been made in the following circumstances. This revision arises out of the Suit No. 619 of 1984 and was filed in the Court of District Judge, Jaunpur prior to 1-7-2002 and was admitted and has been transferred to the Court of Special Judge, Jaunpur and is pending for decision. 3. AN amendment has been made in CPC which has been enforced w. e. f. 1-7-2002 and after considering the amendments in Civil Revision No. 92 of 2002, United Service Club and Others v. Anita Barlow and Others, decided on 16-9-2002, I recorded a finding that after 1-7-2002, the revision under Section 115 CPC cannot be entertained by the District Judge. However, this revision was filed before 1-7-2002 and there is no finding in the above judgment regarding the revisions instituted prior to that date. 4. IT has been contended by the learned Counsel that the learned Additional Judge before whom the Revision is pending has expressed his opinion that in view of the above judgment the revision cannot be decided by him. IT is contended that for this reason the Additional District Judge refused to extend the stay order and was going to dismiss the revision but it was not dismissed on the request of the appellant that he want to move an application for transfer. IT is further contended that one revision has been dismissed on this ground on 30-9-2002, by the District Judge, Jaunpur, the photocopy of the order has been annexed. IT has therefore, been argued that if the Additional District Judge has no jurisdiction to decide the revision it may be recalled to the High Court and be decided. The question, therefore, that arise is whether the revisions filed under Section 115 CPC prior to 1-7- 2002 can be heard and decided on merits by the District Judge. 5. IN this connection firstly, it may be mentioned that there is no specific provision in the Amending Act regarding the pending revisions. However, the provisions of Clause (e) of Section 6 of General Clauses Act are material for cases where there is no expressed provision in the repealing Act. 5. IN this connection firstly, it may be mentioned that there is no specific provision in the Amending Act regarding the pending revisions. However, the provisions of Clause (e) of Section 6 of General Clauses Act are material for cases where there is no expressed provision in the repealing Act. From the perusal of this provision it is apparent that the pending revisions instituted before 1-7-2002 may be heard and decided by the District Judge. 6. THIS point also came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income tax, Bangalore v. Smt. R. Sharadamma, JT 1996 (4) SC Page 90. The Apex Court has held that if amendment is made changing the Forum regarding appeal or revision, duly instituted pending cases shall be decided by the Forum in which they were instituted unless an intention to the contrary is clearly shown. Similar view was also taken by the Apex Court in Ambalal Sarabhi Enterprises Ltd. v. Amrit Lal and Co and another, (2001) 8 Supreme Court Cases 397 and this Court in Central Bank of India, v. VIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar, ARC 1997 (1) 212 and they show that duly instituted matter shall be decided by the same Court, notwithstanding the change in the forum. 7. ON considering the above provision and the above decisions there is no room for doubt that the revisions under Section 115 CPC which were instituted before the District Judges prior to 1- 7-2002 can be heard and disposed of by the District Judges and the jurisdiction to decide these revisions has not been taken away. 8. THE Special Judge before whom the revision is pending therefore, has jurisdiction to decide the revision on merits. There is no question to recall of the revision to the High Court. Accordingly, the application for transfer is rejected. Transfer Application rejected.