Back
Madras High Court
RAMAKRISHNAN
M.J.Delaflore - Appellant
Versus
Amir Mohammad - Respondent
Decided On : 12/23/1968
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - EXTENSION OF LAWS ACT - REPEALING AND SAVING PROVISIONS - INTERPRETATION - PENDING SUITS - CONTINUATION OF PROCEDURE UNDER FRENCH CIVIL CODE - JURISDICTION OF COURTS.
Fact of the Case:
A suit was pending in the Court of the Premier Instance at Karaikal, Pondicherry, when the Pondicherry Civil Courts Act, 1966, and the Pondicherry (Extension of Laws) Act, 1968, came into force. The latter Act extended the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to Pondicherry, subject to certain modifications. Five lawyers, who were not parties to the suit, filed an application in the Court of the Premier Instance, seeking a declaration that the court had no jurisdiction to order the continuation of the procedure under the French law in pending old suits.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioners had no locus standi to file the application, and that the prayer in the petition was vague and general. The court also held that the saving provisions in the Extension of Laws Act did not give jurisdiction for dealing with pending legal proceedings under the French Civil Procedure Code. The court further held that alterations in procedure are generally retrospective, unless there is some good reason against it, but that a new procedure would be presumably inapplicable where its application would prejudice rights established under the old, or would involve a breach of faith between the parties.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners had locus standi to file the application. 2. Whether the prayer in the petition was vague and general. 3. Whether the saving provisions in the Extension of Laws Act gave jurisdiction for dealing with pending legal proceedings under the French Civil Procedure Code. 4. Whether alterations in procedure are generally retrospective.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The petitioners were not parties to the suit and had no direct interest in the outcome of the case. Therefore, they did not have locus standi to file the application. 2. The prayer in the petition was vague and general, and did not set forth any specific particulars as to the rights affected by the repealing and saving enactment. 3. The saving provisions in the Extension of Laws Act did not give jurisdiction for dealing with pending legal proceedings under the French Civil Procedure Code. The saving provisions only preserved the right to continue the legal proceeding notwithstanding anything in the later enactment which may affect such continuance. However, if a particular procedure had to be followed under the pre-existing law in respect of that legal proceeding, but a different procedure is prescribed under the later enactment, the legal proceeding, in so far as its further continuation is concerned, has to follow the procedure indicated in the new law. 4. Alterations in procedure are generally retrospective, unless there is some good reason against it. However, a new procedure would be presumably inapplicable where its application would prejudice rights established under the old, or would involve a breach of faith between the parties.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
ORDER :- This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution in somewhat unusual circumstances, which can be stated briefly, A suit O. S. No. 21 of 1968 was pending between Kichenaramanoudjam Chettiar (Plaintiff) and Alamelu Ammale and four other persons, in the Court of the Premier Instance at Karaikal. That suit was instituted on 7-4-1967. The Pondicherry Legislature passed the Pondicherry Civil Courts Act. 1966 (Act 12 of 1966). This Act provided lor the replacement of the existing hierarchy of Courts dealing with civil law in the Pondicherry Union Territory (which was formerly a part of the overseas territories of France) by a hierarchy of Courts following the same pattern as in the Indian Union. To illustrate this, under Section 6(1) of the Act, the Tribunal Superieur d' Appel becomes the Court of the District Judge, the Tribunal of the Premier Instance becomes the Court of a Sub-Judge and the Court of the Judges de Paix becomes the Munsifs Court. This Act was to come into force on such date as the Pondicherry Government by notification in the official gazette may appoint. Thereafter, the Parliament enacted the Pondicherry (Extension of Laws) Act, 1968 (Act 26 of 1968) which came into force on 5-9-1968. The Pondicherry Civil Courts Act was also brought into force on the same date. Section 3(1) of the Pondicherry (Extension of Laws) Act extended the various enactments mentioned in Part I of the Schedule, to the Pondicherry State subject to the modification mentioned in the schedule, from the abovesaid date. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is one of enactments mentioned in the schedule. That Code as in force in the State of Madras on the 1st day of August 1966 was extended to Pondicherry. A certain modification was made in column 5 of the schedule by stating that any judgment decree or order passed or made before the enactment under the preexisting law in Pondicherry shall be deemed to have been made or passed under the Civil Procedure Code; but any period of limitation in respect of such judgment, decree or order under the preexisting
law should not be treated as having been extended. Correspondingly there was also introduced in the Pondicherry (Extension of Laws) Act a repealing and saving provision as follows:-
"4(1). Any law in force in Pondicherry or any area thereof corresponding to any Act referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 3 or any part thereof (except in so far as such law continues to be applicable to Renoncants) shall stand repealed as from the coming into force of such Act in Pondicherry.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall affect-
(a) the previous operation of any law so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or
(b) any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any law so repealed; or
(c) any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any law so repealed; or
(d) any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid, and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if this Act had not been passed:
Provided that anything done or any action taken (including any appointment or delegation made, notification, instruction or direction issued, form, bye-law or scheme framed, certificate obtained, permit or licence granted, or registration effected) under any such law, shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provision of the Act extended to Pondicherry by this Act and shall continue to be in force accordingly unless and until superseded by anything done or any action taken under the said Act."
Shortly after this, five people, Messrs, M. J. Delaflore, V. Janakiram, A. Veda, Amir Mohamed, M. S. Sundiramoorthy, who were not parties to the above suit, but w
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
