Retrospective amendment and right of appeal: deposit condition could not bar an appeal from an earlier proceeding.

The amended proviso to Section 174(5) of the Bengal Tenancy Act was treated as imposing a new condition precedent to admission of appeal by requiring deposit of the amount recoverable in execution. Because the right of appeal is substantive and a pending proceeding is ordinarily governed by the law in force when the original proceeding began, the amendment could not apply retrospectively absent clear express words or necessary implication. The proviso contained no such indication, so the deposit requirement could not be used to defeat an appeal arising from an earlier proceeding. The refusal to entertain the appeal for non-deposit was therefore incorrect.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amended proviso to Section 174(5) of the Bengal Tenancy Act applied retrospectively so as to require a deposit as a condition for admission of an appeal arising from proceedings initiated before the amendment came into force.

Analysis: The amended proviso imposed a new restriction on the right of appeal by making deposit of the amount recoverable in execution a condition precedent to admission. The right of appeal was treated as a substantive right, not a mere matter of procedure, and a pending proceeding was governed by the law in force when the original proceeding commenced unless retrospective effect was clearly expressed or necessarily implied. The amendment contained no such express or implied indication. The deposit requirement therefore could not be applied to defeat an appeal arising from an earlier proceeding.

Conclusion: The amended proviso was held not to operate retrospectively, and the refusal to entertain the appeal on the ground of non-deposit was incorrect.

---