AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hakeem, J.—The only contention raised by Sri. Shivaswamy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, is that "The Repealing and Amending Act, 1988" (Act No. 19 of 1988) (hereinafter referred to as the Repealing Act) has the effect of taking away the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to grant permission to sue u/s 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the repealing of the CPC (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act No. 104 of 1976) (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act) by the Repealing Act has the effect of nullifying the amendments incorporated in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Parent Act).
By the Amendment Act, certain sub-sections and words were inserted or substituted and some provisions were omitted in the Parent Act. These insertions, substitutions and omissions, after incorporation, thus became part of the Parent Act. Thereafter, the Act has to be read as amended accordingly. It is precisely for this reason the Repealing Act was passed with the savings as provided in Section 4 thereof which reads as under:
"4. Savings: The repeal by this Act of any enactment shall not affect any other enactment in which the repealed enactment has been applied, incorporated or referred to;
And this Act shall not affect the validity, invalidity, effect or consequence of anything already done or suffered; or any right, title, obligation or liability already acquired, accrued or incurred, or any remedy or proceeding in respect thereof, or any release or discharge of or from any debt, penalty, obligation, liability, claim or demand, or any indemnity already granted, or the proof of any past act or thing;
Nor shall this Act affect any principle or Rule of Law, or established jurisdiction, form or course of pleading, practice or procedure , or existing usage, custom, privilege, restriction, exemption, office or appointment, notwithstanding that the same respectively may have been in any manner affirmed or recognised or derived by, in or from any enactment hereby repealed;
Nor shall the repeal by this Act of any enactment revive or restore any jurisdiction office, custom, liability, right, title, privilege, restriction, exemption, usage, practice, procedure or other matter or thing not now existing or in force."
(Emphasis supplied)
Therefore, it is manifest that repeal of the Amendment Act by the Repealing Act has no effect of taking away the jurisdiction of the Civil Court u/s 92 of the CPC (as amended), since the amendment had been incorporated in the Parent Act and its continuance in the Statute Book had virtually become redundant. As such there is no error in the impugned order warranting interference.
Civil Revision Petition is rejected.