SHINGHAL, J.—These revision petition relate to the validity of the amendments which have been made in Orders XVIII and XXVI of the Code of C.P., hereinafter referred to as "the Code", by notification No. 3/S.R.O.S.O. 119 dated November 29, 1973, published in the State Gazette, extraordinary, dated December 1, 1973. The learned counsel for the petitioners has advanced his arguments in all these petitions together, and I shall dispose them of by a common judgement as suggested by him.

2. It has been argued by the learned counsel that rule 5 of Order XVIII of the Code forms a part of the body of the Code, and that the new rule 19 of that order, which has been inserted by the aforesaid notification, is invalid as it is inconsistent with that rule. The argument has been based on the provisions of sec. 128(1).

3. Sec. 121 deals with the effect of the rules in the First Schedule of the Code. It provides that the rules (in the First Schedule) "shall have effect as if enacted in the body of this Code", "until anulled or altered" in accordance with other provisions of Part X. That, by itself, is sufficient to show that the rules in the First Schedule of the Code have not been enacted in the bo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document