Judgment 1. THE petitioner in this Article 226 petition dated March 29, 2011 is seeking the following reliefs:- (i) a mandamus commanding the respondents to revoke the notification, if any, under which the City Civil Court is to transfer ejectment suits to the Small Cause Court; (ii) an order declaring the amendment of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 as ultra vires the Constitution; and (iii) an order declaring the amendment of the City Civil Court Act, 1953 published under Notification No. 2474-L dated October 25, 1999 as ultra vires the Constitution. 2. MR. Ram appearing for the petitioner has argued that. Both the City Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 1999 and the Presidency Small Cause Courts (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1999 were published under the impugned notifications, though the requisite Bills were never introduced in the West Bengal Legislative Assembly and the Governor and the President, the respective authorities, did not assent to the Bills passed by the legislature. He has contended that though the Legislative Assembly was competent to amend the City Civil Court Act, 1953, the amendment in question having not been made according to the legislative procedure has no force of law. 3. HIS argument is that without amending the provisions of section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the Legislative Assembly could not confer power on the City Civil Court to entertain an appeal arising out of a suit for the recovery of possession of any premises under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956; and that in view of the provisions of the Letters Patent only the High Court was competent to amend the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882. 4. MR. Razack, Additional Solicitor-General of India, has submitted that he does not find any reason to say that the West Bengal Legislative Assembly was not competent to amend the City Civil Court Act, 1953 and the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882. According to him, in view of the provisions of Entry 65 of List II of Schedule VII to the Constitution of India, the State Legislature was competent to amend both the Acts. Mr. According to him, in view of the provisions of Entry 65 of List II of Schedule VII to the Constitution of India, the State Legislature was competent to amend both the Acts. Mr. Roy, Advocate-General for the State of West Bengal, has submitted that it is not known on what basis counsel for the petitioner has argued that without introducing the requisite Bills the two Amendment Acts were published under the notifications in question, for both the Bills were duly introduced in the West Bengal Legislative Assembly and after the legislature passed the Bills, the Governor and the President assented to them. 5. HE has said that it is evident from the provisions of section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 that for amending provisions of the City Civil Court Act, 1953, providing for appeal before the City Civil Court, it was not necessary to amend the provisions of section 96 of the Code; and that Entry 65 of List II of Schedule VII to the Constitution of India empowered the State Legislature to amend both the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 and the City Civil Court Act, 1953. 6. THE case argued by counsel for the petitioner, except the case that the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 can be amended only by the High Court empowered for the purpose by the Letters Patent, has not been stated anywhere in the petition. A case that the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 can be amended only by the High Court has been stated in para. 14 of the petition. It is, therefore, evident that counsel has questioned both the amendments by taking points which have not been taken by the petitioner in his petition. Faced with this counsel has submitted that the petitioner needs time to file a supplementary affidavit. 7. I do not find any reason to permit counsel to argue a case not stated by the petitioner anywhere in the petition. I do not find any reason either to permit the petitioner to file a supplementary affidavit for stating a new case that has been argued by his counsel at the Bar. 8. SERIOUS allegations have been made by counsel in support of the petitioner's case absolutely without any basis and the petitioner did not have the courage to take the responsibility of the allegations. 8. SERIOUS allegations have been made by counsel in support of the petitioner's case absolutely without any basis and the petitioner did not have the courage to take the responsibility of the allegations. The allegations are that the amendments have been notified without introducing the Bills in the legislature and obtaining assent of the Governor and the President to the Bills passed by the legislature. I do not find any reason to permit the petitioner to abuse the process of Court. I say so because serious allegations have been made without stating a case in the petition in support of the allegations. None should be permitted to throw a casual challenge to laws enacted by the legislature. 9. MR. Roy has produced both the amendment Bills and the respective assents of the Governor and the President. The Bills were published in the Official Gazette. The assents of the Governor and the President were also published in the Official Gazette. It is evident that without ascertaining the real state of affairs, counsel has ventured to make serious allegations in support of the petitioner's challenge to vires of the amendments. 10. I do not find any reason to say that without amending the provisions of section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 power could not be conferred on the City Civil Court for entertaining appeals arising out of a suit or proceeding for the recovery of possession of any premises under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. As rightly pointed out by both the Additional Solicitor-General and the Advocate-General, sub-section (1) of section 96 provides that an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by Court exercising original jurisdiction to the Court authorized to hear appeals from the decisions of such Court, unless otherwise expressly provided in the body of the Code or by any other law for the time being in force. 11. HENCE the provisions of the City Civil Court, 1953 could be amended without amending the provisions of section 96 of the Code for conferring power on the City Civil Court to entertain appeals arising out of a suit or proceeding for the recovery of possession of any premises under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. 12. I agree with Mr. Razack and Mr. 12. I agree with Mr. Razack and Mr. Roy that the argument that in view of the provisions of the Letters Patent the provisions of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 could be amended only by the High Court is absolutely baseless. No law has been shown in support of the argument. No provision of the Letters Patent empowers the High Court or the Chief Justice thereof to amend the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 or any provision thereof. Writ petition dismissed.