The statutory provisions regarding appellate remedy for revocation of leave to present proceedings prevail over inconsistent procedural rules, and delays in taking steps in the proceedings may result in refusal of extensions of time.

Gentle, J.

1. This is an application by the respondent in a petition presented pursuant to the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act 3 of 1936. In the application the applicant seeks to obtain revocation of the order giving leave to the petitioner to present her proceedings in this Court, the grounds being that the balance of convenience will be met by the proceeding being presented in a Court nearer to the Punjab where the respondent says he is residing. This Court is not the High Court sitting in its original jurisdiction. It is the Parsi Chief Matrimonial Court which is constituted under the provisions of Sections 18 and 19, Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936. The application on the face of it purports to have been issued under Order 13, Rule 14 (f) of the Rules of the Original Side of the High Court. This rule provides that the Judge sitting on the original side of the High Court shall deal with applications for revocation of orders granting leave to sue.

2. The petitioner applied to the Parsi Chief Matrimonial Court under Section 29, Sub-section (3) of the Act for leave to present her proceedings in the Matrimonial Court in Madras and on 6th February 1941, this Court granted the leave which the petitioner sought. Learned counsel on behalf of the respondent, the applicant in the application before me, has with great frankness, conceded that his client was served with the proceedings in the suit brought against him by his wife by the end of February 1941. Early in the month of March, this Court fixed the date to hear the suit between the petitioner and the respondent to take place on 5th August 1941 and again learned counsel on behalf of the respondent has conceded that his client was aware of the date of trial by end of March 1941. No step was taken by him until 7th May 1941 when the present application was issued to revoke the leave granted to the petitioning wife to bring her proceedings in Madras. This application was not served until on or about 20th July. Learned counsel on behalf of the wife takes the preliminary objection that the wrong procedure has been adopted and ho relies upon the provisions of Section 47, Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, which, so far as is material, provides as follows:

An appeal shall lie to the High Court from... (b) the granting of leave by any such Court under Sub-section (3) of Section 29 provided that such appeal shall be instituted within three calendar months after the decision appealed from shall have been pronounced.

3. The words above "such Court" clearly refer to the Chief Parsi Matrimonial Court within the jurisdiction of the High Court. It is contended that the husband should have presented an appeal to the High Court from the decision of the Matrimonial Court granting leave to sue and the machinery which has been adopted pursuant to the provisions of the original side rules of the High Court is wrong and consequently this application must fail. Prior to 1936 the statutory enactment in force was the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act of 1865 which contains some similar provisions to the Act of 1936 but by Section 51 of the earlier Act the High Court of the area in which the Parsi Matrimonial Court is established was empowered to make such rules and regulations concerning the practice and procedure in the Matrimonial Court as it might consider expedient. Under the provision of the section, to which I just referred, the High Court provided in Section 35, Rule 18 of its original side rules that the rules of the High Court should apply to all suits under the Matrimonial Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act of 1865. Counsel on behalf of the husband thereupon contends that the original side rules are still applicable to the Parsi Matrimonial Court and he is entitled to present this application. Section 53 of the Act of 1936 repealed the whole of the Act of 1865. It has therefore repealed Section 51 to which I have referred. By the Repealing and Amending Act of 1937, Section 53 of the 1936 Act was it