M. C. DESAI, J. :-

This is an application for revising under S. 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act a decree passed by a Court of small causes. The decree was passed on 27-4-1957 in a suit instituted in 1956 in the Court of Small Causes. Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act as it then existed laid down that the High Court for the purposes of satisfying itself that a decree or order made in any case decided by a Court of small causes was according to law, might call for the case and pass such order with respect thereto as it thought fit.

The U. P. Legislature passed the Provincial Small Cause Courts (U. P. Amendment) Act (No. 17 of 1957), which amended S. 25 by substituting the words "the District Judge" in place of the words "the High Court", "himself" for the word "itself" and "he" for "it". The U. P. Act received the Presidents assent on 30-5-1957 and was published in the Gazette of 4-6-1957. It was to come into force at once; so it came into force on 4-6-1957. The present application was filed in this Court on 27-7-1957 and a preliminary objection has been raised by the opposite party to its maintainability.

The opposite party pleads that after the amendment of S. 25 no application for revision can be filed in this Court and that this application ought to have been filed in the Court of the District Judge. In reply it was contended by the applicant that on the date on which the suit was instituted and on the date on which it was decreed against it, an application for revision could have been filed in this Court and that the right of the party to file an application in this Court remained unaffected by the subsequent amendment.

It is not in dispute that if the case is governed by the law in force on the date on which the application was filed, it could not be filed in this Court and ought to have been filed in the District Judges Court and that if it is governed by the law in force at the time of the institution of the suit or at the time of its being decreed, the application would lie in this Court. The Amendment Act does not say anything, about its effect or enforcement except that it was to come into force at once. The obvious meaning of the Act coming into force on 4-6-1957, the date of its publication, is that on and after that date the District Judge has the power of calling for a case decided bya Court of Small Causes and revising a decree or order made by it. There is nothing in the Amendment Act to suggest that it would not apply to a case instituted or decided before it came into force and it would not be open to us to read any such qualification in it. The law in force on 27-7-1957 was that he District Judge had the power to revise the order and there was no law in force under which this Court would have the power. Previously this Court had the power, but it was taken away by the Amendment Act before the application was filed.

2.All the law governing the question is contained in S. 6 of the U. P. General Clauses Act. It deals with the effect of repeal of Acts. Admittedly it does not deal expressly with the effect of amendment of an Act, but there is no other law which lays down the effect of amendment of an Act. It cannot be believed that the Legislature provided for the effect of repeal of Acts but did not make any provision for amendment of Acts.

Amendment of an Act is certainly not an uncommon or unimportant matter which need not be provided for; I venture to suppose that amendment of an Act is more frequent than repeal of an Act. The question of the effect of an amendment is not different from that of the effect of repeal of an Act and is certainly as important as the other. If it cannot be accepted that the Legislature did not provide for the effect of amendment of an Act, the effect must have been provided for in S. 6. Amendment of an Act consists of two steps,

(1) of repeal of the provision amended and

(2) of enactment of the provision in the amended form.

Take the amendment in question; the law empowerin