ORDER

M.P. No.5205 of 2022 has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 31.10.2022 passed in Civil Suit No.192A/2017 passed by learned 1^st Civil Judge, Class II to Vth Additional Judge, Morena District Morena and M.P. No.3021 of Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA

2022 has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 01.07.2022 passed in Civil Suit No.193A/2017 by learned 1^st Civil Judge, Class II, Morena District Gwalior whereby the applications preferred by the petitioners under Section 151 CPC have been rejected by the learned trial Court holing that the amendment in Civil Procedure Code is not retrospective but prospective.

2. Short facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner seeking eviction on the ground of 12(1)(a), (b) and (f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act. Written statement was filed by the petitioner/defendant denying the averments as pleaded in the plaint and the learned Trial Court framed the issues. After framing of issues, plaintiff-Vijay Kumar Bandil alongwith two other witnesses i.e. Pradeep Kumar Kamal and Kishore Bandil submitted their statements in chief as per the provision under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC. The petitioner submitted an application under Section 151 CPC stating that by notification dated 04.05.2022, Rule 4-A has been inserted and according to which, the evidence of the witnesses in attendance shall be taken orally in open Court in its presence and under the personal direction and superintendence of the judge and affidavit is not admissible in evidence and as CPC is a procedural law, therefore the said amended provision will apply retrospectively. The learned Trial Court heard the arguments on the application and rejected the same with the finding that the amendment as brought in the procedural law is prospective and not retrospective. Hence, assailing the orders dated

31.10.2022 and 01.07.2022, the present petitions have been filed.

3. Learned senior counsel Shri N.K. Gupta on behalf of petitioner had laid the foundation of his submissions by asserting, Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA that it was a settled proposition of law, that alteration of substantive law is always presumed and treated as having only prospective implications, unless the legislative enactment itself, expressly or impliedly mandates it to be retrospective and in contradistinction to the above, it was submitted, that an amendment to a procedural enactment is always presumed and treated to have retrospective effect, except when intended otherwise, expressly or impliedly, through the legislation itself.

4. It was also asserted that vide amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure vide The Code of Civil Procedure (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2020, Rule 4-A has been inserted vide notification dated 04.05.2022 which provides that the evidence of the witnesses in attendance shall be taken orally in open Court in the presence and under the personal direction and superintendence of the judge and as such the said amendment would have a retrospective effect and from the said amendment, it is not evident that legislature had intended otherwise expressly or impliedly, thus, the said amendment shall be applicable to the pending proceedings and when the plaintiff's evidence has not yet started except for filing of affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC on 11.01.2019, learned trial Court was legally bound to record statement of plaintiff orally in open Court but ignoring the legal position, learned trial Court has rejected the application u/S. 151 CPC wherein prayer was made to record statement of plaintiff orally in the court. To bolster his submissions, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Sudhir G. Angur and others Vs. M.Sanjeev and others reported in (2006) 1 SCC 151 Para 11 and referring to Para 11, it was argued that all procedural laws are Signature Not Verified Signe