The main legal principle established in the judgment is that the rights of the parties to pending actions should be determined by the law in force at the commencement of the action, unless the legislative intent to interfere with pending actions is clear and unequivocal.

1. The question arising for decision in the civil revision petition turns on the interpretation of S.125 of Act I of 1964 amended by the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969 (Act 35 of 1969). The said provision reads:

"125. Bar of jurisdiction of civil courts: (1) No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question or to determine any matter which is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with or to be determined by the Land Tribunal or the Appellate authority or the Land Board or the Government or an officer of the Government:

Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply to proceeding in any court at the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969.

(2) No order of the Land Tribunal or the appellate authority or the Land Board or the Government or an officer of the Government made under this Act shall be questioned in any civil court, except as provided in this Act.

(3) If in any suit or other proceeding any question regarding rights of a tenant or a kudikidappukaran (including a question as to whether a person is a tenant or a kudikidappukaran) arises, the civil court shall stay the suit or other proceedings and refer such question to the Land Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the land or part thereof is situate together with the relevant records for the decision of that question only.

(4) The Land Tribunal shall decide the question referred to it under sub-section [3] and return the records together with its decision to the civil court.

(5) The civil court shall then proceed to decide the suit or other proceedings accepting the decision of the Land Tribunal on the question referred to it.

(6) The decision of the Land Tribunal on the question referred to it shall, for the purposes of appeal, be deemed to be part of the finding of the civil court.

(7) No civil court shall have power to grant injunction in any suit or other proceeding referred to in sub-section [3] restraining any person from entering into or occupying or cultivating any land or kudikidappu or to appoint a receiver for any property in respect of which a question referred to in that sub-section has arisen, till such question is decided by the Land Tribunal, and any such injunction granted or appointment made before the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms [Amendment] Act, 1969, or before such question has arisen, shall stand cancelled."

The above Section was inserted by S.102 of the Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969 (Act 35 of 1969) in substitution for the original S.125, which reads:

"125. Bar of jurisdiction of courts: No order of the Land Tribunal or the Land Board under this Act shall be called in question in any court, except as provided in this Act."

Act 35 of 1969 came into force on 1-1-1970 in pursuance to the notification dated 1-1-1970 issued by the Government under S.1 (2) of the Act.

2. The short question raised before us is whether suits instituted in civil courts prior to the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969 (Act 35 of 1969) will be controlled by the new provision. S.9, CPC. postulates the jurisdiction of the ordinary civil courts to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred; and S.4, CPC. lays down that in the absence of any specific provision to the contrary, nothing in the Code shall affect the special form of procedure prescribed by or under any other law for the time being in force. To satisfy the requirement of S.9, CPC. it is not necessary that there should be an express bar. It is enough if the statute purports to exclude the ordinary jurisdiction of the civil courts, though not expressly, by the use of words as would necessarily lead to the intendment of such exclusion. The saving clauses in S.4 and 9. CPC. will preclude the contention that S.125 of the Land Reforms Act, which bars the jurisdiction of civil courts in certain