Back
2016 Supreme(Ori) 59
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
K.R. MOHAPATRA, J.
Padmini Panda and another - Appellants
Versus
Smt. Pramila Samantaray & others - Respondents
FAO NO. 181 OF 2015
Decided on : 29-01-2016
For the Appellants : M/s. Gautam Misra, D.K. Patra & A. Dash
For the Respondents: None Miss S. Mishra, Addl. Standing Counsel for State
The main legal point established in the judgment is that changes in procedural law operate retrospectively, while substantive law is presumed to be prospective unless made retrospective by express enactment or necessary intendment.
Headnote:
Amendment - Maintainability of Appeal - Odisha Civil Courts Act, 1984 - Section 16
Fact of the Case:
The court considered the maintainability of an appeal in view of the amendment of Section 16 of the Odisha Civil Courts Act, 1984 by the Odisha Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2014. The question was whether the amendment was applicable to pending suits or had only prospective effect.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the amendment to Section 16 by the Amending Act, 2014 changed the forum for appeals, which was procedural in nature. It held that the amendment was retrospective in nature and applicable to pending suits, making the appeal not maintainable before the court.
Issues: The main issue was the retrospective applicability of the amendment to Section 16 of the Odisha Civil Courts Act, 1984.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal principles that a change in procedural law operates retrospectively, while substantive law is prospective unless made retrospective by express enactment or necessary intendment.
Final Decision: The court held that the appeal, filed after the effective date of the amendment, was not maintainable before the court and directed the appellants to present the appeal before the District Judge.
JUDGMENT :
K.R. Mohapatra, J.
In this appeal, Stamp Reporter has pointed out the defects regarding maintainability of the appeal in view of the Odisha Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2014 (for short ‘the Amending Act, 2014’), which came into force with effect from 5th March 2015. Thus, this appeal was listed for consideration on the question of maintainability in view of the amendment of Section 16 of the Orissa Civil Courts Act, 1984 (for short ‘the Act, 1984’) by virtue of the Amending Act, 2014 which became effective from 5th March, 2015.
2. In order to appreciate the issue involved regarding maintainability of the appeal, it requires a cursory glance of the pre-amended provision of Section 16 of the Orissa Civil Courts Act, 1984 and the amendment, which was brought in Section 16 by virtue of the Amending Act, 2014.
“16. (1) Save as otherwise provided by any enactment for the time being in force,
(a) an appeal from a decree or order of a District Judge or Additional District Judge shall lie to the High Court;
(b) an appeal shall not lie to the High Court from a decree or order of an Additional District Judge in any case, in which if the same had been made by the District Judge and appeal would not lie to the High Court.
(2) Save as aforesaid, an appeal from the decree or order of a [Substituted vide Orissa Gazette Ext. No. 1647/21.12.1993-Notfn.No.16063-Legis./10.12.1993.][Civil Judge (Senior Division)] shall lie-
(a) to a District Judge, where the value of the original suit in which or in any proceeding arising out of which the decree or order was made, did not exceed [Substituted vide Orissa Gazette Ext., No. 1518/24.9.2010][ five lakh rupees]; and
(b) to the High Court, in any other case.
(3) Save as aforesaid, an appeal from the decree or order of a Civil Judge, (Junior Division) shall lie to the District Judge.
(4) Where the function of receiving any appeals which lie to the District Judge under Subsection (2) or Sub-section (3) has been assigned to an Additional District Judge, the appeals may be preferred in the Court of such Additional District Judge.
(5) The High Court may, by notification, direct that any or all appeals referred to in Sub-section (3) shall be preferred in the Court of any 1[Civil Judge (Senior Division)] mentioned in the notification, and the appeals shall thereupon, be preferred accordingly.”
The following amendment has been brought in to Section 16 by virtue of the Amending Act, 2014.
“2. In the Odisha Civil Courts Act, 1984, in section 16,--
(i) For sub-section (2) including the explanation thereto, following sub-section shall be substituted, namely:-“(2) Save as aforesaid, an appeal from the decree or order of a Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Civil Judge (Junior Division) shall lie to the District Judge,”
(ii) Sub-section (3) shall be omitted;
(iii) In sub-section (4), the words, figure and bracket” or sub-section (3)” shall be omitted; and
(iv) For sub-section (5), following sub-section shall be substituted, namely:--“(5) The High Court may, by notification, direct that any or all appeals from the decree or order or a Civil Judge (Junior Division) referred to in sub-section (2) shall be preferred in the Court of any Civil Judge (Senior Division) mentioned in the notification, and the appeals shall thereupon, be preferred accordingly.”
Clause (2) of Section 1 of the Amending Act, 2014 provides that:
“It shall come into force on such date as the State Government may, by notification, appoint in this behalf.”
Such notification of the Government of Odisha in the Department of law has been made on 20th February, 2015 fixing the date of appointment as 5.3.2015.
Section 16(2)(a) of the Act, 1984 [as amended by the Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2010] provided that an appeal from an original decree or order would lie to the District Judge where the value of the original suit did not exceed Rs.5.00 lakh. In all other cases, the appeals are being preferred to the High Court as provided under Section 16(2)(b) of the Act. In
