Repugnancy and retrospective procedure: U.P. CPC amendment upheld, and pending proceedings were governed by Section 97(3).

Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as inserted by the U.P. amendments, was treated as valid because repugnancy under Article 254 depends on a real collision between laws occupying the same field, and the Central amendment did not displace the State provision. The rule was also upheld under Article 14 since tenants in default of admitted rent formed a distinct class with a rational nexus to the object of protecting landlords from delay and hardship. Section 97(3) of the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976 was held to apply to pending suits, appeals, applications, and proceedings, reflecting clear legislative intent for retrospective operation.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as inserted by the U.P. amendments, was repugnant to the Central amendment and void under Article 254 of the Constitution of India, and whether it offended Article 14 of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether Section 97(3) of the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976 applied retrospectively to pending proceedings.

Issue (i): whether Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as inserted by the U.P. amendments, was repugnant to the Central amendment and void under Article 254 of the Constitution of India, and whether it offended Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Repugnancy under Article 254 depends on whether the State law and the Parliamentary law occupy the same field and are irreconcilably inconsistent. A State amendment made with Presidential assent is not displaced merely because a later Central amendment exists unless both enactments collide on the same subject-matter. The Court found that the Central amendment to the Code did not deal with the field occupied by Order XV Rule 5 in Uttar Pradesh, and the Code itself contained analogous provisions authorising striking off of defence for procedural default. The rule was also held not to create hostile discrimination, because tenants in default of admitted rent formed a distinct class and the classification had a rational nexus with the object of protecting landlords from hardship and delay.

Conclusion: Order XV Rule 5 was not repugnant, did not become void, and was not violative of Article 14.

Issue (ii): whether Section 97(3) of the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976 applied retrospectively to pending proceedings.

Analysis: Section 97(3) expressly extended the amended principal Act to every suit, proceeding, appeal, or application pending at the commencement of the Amendment Act, irrespective of when the cause of action arose. The Court held that the provision manifested a clear legislative intent to apply the amended procedural law to pending matters and that the distinction between making a law and bringing it into force did not defeat the statutory command of retrospective application to pending proceedings.

Conclusion: Section 97(3) operated retrospectively and governed pending proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The U.P. amendment remained valid and applicable, the procedural challenge failed, and the appeals were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Inconsistency under Article 254 is determined by collision between the substantive fields of the competing laws, not by the date on which they are brought into force, and an express savings-and-retrospectivity provision can extend the amended procedural law to pending proceedings.

---