An amendment made by a High Court to the rules in the First Schedule of the Code of Civil Procedure, under the powers conferred by section 122 of the Code, continues to be operative until annulled or altered in accordance with the provisions of Part X of the Code, and is not automatically repealed or rendered inoperative by the creation of a new High Court.

( 1 ) THIS is the defendants revision under section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, from the order of a learned Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi, dated 13/9/1967 disposing of the defendants objection questioning the jurisdiction of the Court below to entertain, try and dispose of the suit under Order 37 of the Code. The Court below repelled the defendants challenge holding that even after the enforcement of the Delhi High Court Act (No. 2 of 1966), it was competent to entertain the present suit by virtue of the amended Rule of Order 37. The Court below also disposed of by the impugned order the defendants application for leave to defend the suit. It directed deposit by way of security, by the defendants, of the amount of Rs. 500. 00, which was admitted by the defendants to be due to the plaintiff, along with a sum of Rs. 75. 00, the estimated costs thereon. In regard to the balance of Rs. 1,200. 00 together with costs estimated at Rs. 200. 00, the defendants were also directed to furnish security.

( 2 ) BEFORE me on revision, the first and foremost challenge against the order of the Court below relates to its competence to entertain and proceed with the present suit under Order 37 of the Code. The argument forcefully pressed by the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner is that the amendment in Order 37, Rule 1 of the Code, on which reliance has been placed, was made by the High Court of Lahore in 1923 and 1932 and that with the enforcement of the Delhi High Court Act, on 31-10-1966, unless the High Court of Delhi amends Order 37, Rule 1, as originally enacted, with the object of extending the operation of Order 37 to the civil Courts in the Union Territory of Delhi, the Court below could not assume such jurisdiction. Briefly put, the argument is based on the assumption that with the Punjab High Court ceasing to exercise jurisdiction over the Union Territory of Delhi, the amendment which was operative up to 30-10-66, must be deemed automatically to have exhaustive itself and to have died a natural death.

( 3 ) IT is necessary at this stage to reproduce Rule I of Order 37 as amended, which was admittedly in force up to 30/10/1966, and the validity of which up to that date has not been challenged before me. This Order prescribes summary procedure on negotiable instruments and Rule 1 reads as under:

"1. Application of order.-This order shall apply only to

(A) the High Courts of Judicature at Fort William, Madras and Bombay ;

(B) the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Sind ;

(C) any other Court to which section 532 to 537 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882, have been already applied ; and

(D) the Courts of the District Judge and Subordinate Judges of the First Class of the Delhi Province and the Courts of the District Judges and Subordinate Judges of the First Class in the Civil Districts of Lahore and Amritsar in the Province of the Punjab. "

THE amendment contained in clause (d) was made by the Lahore High Court pursuant to the power conferred by section 122 of the Code which authorised it to annul, alter or add to all or any of the Rules in the First Schedule to the Code: High Court Rules and Orders, Vol I, Chapter 21, page 30. The validity of the exercise of the power under section 122 for the purpose of altering or adding to Rule 1 of Order 37 was upheld by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court in Bhondu Mal vs. Muhammad Ahmad-Mushtaz Ahmad Now, it is axiomatic that if the delegated legislative authority makes a law within its competence as such delegate, then the law so made must continue to be operative, if the language so warrants, in spite of the delegated authority ceasing to exist. The delegate having exercised the power has achieved the object of the delegation and it is not necessary that the power to make the law delegated by the principal should continue in order to sustain the life of the delegated legislation. No authority has been cited, no precedent appealed to and no principle has bee