Civil jurisdiction cannot be ousted in pending appeals absent clear retrospective intent; interlocutory reference orders remain reviewable in final appeal.

Amendments ousting civil jurisdiction were held not to apply to a pending appeal because the statutory language did not clearly or by necessary implication give retrospective effect; the Civil Court therefore retained jurisdiction and the reference to the Revenue Officer could not stand. The SC also held that a Letters Patent Bench could examine the Single Judge's interlocutory order directing reference, since it did not terminate the proceedings and could be considered in an appeal from the final decree; Section 105(2) CPC did not bar such review on these facts. The challenge accordingly failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amendments made by the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases (Amendment) Act, 1953 applied to pending appellate proceedings so as to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts and require reference of the tenancy question to the Revenue Officer. (ii) Whether the Letters Patent Bench could examine the interlocutory order made by the Single Judge directing reference to the Revenue Officer.

Issue (i): Whether the amendments made by the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases (Amendment) Act, 1953 applied to pending appellate proceedings so as to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts and require reference of the tenancy question to the Revenue Officer.

Analysis: The amended provisions were introduced after the suit had already been decreed by the Trial Court and while an appeal was pending. The words used in the amended sections did not expressly or by necessary implication show an intention to affect appeals already pending. The expression that a question may arise 'whenever' was not enough to extend the amendment to appellate proceedings, particularly because the language of the relevant provisions referred to a 'suit or proceeding' and to a Civil Court not entertaining matters otherwise within the Revenue Officer's jurisdiction, without using language apt to include pending appeals. In the absence of clear words, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in pending matters could not be taken away.

Conclusion: The 1953 amendments did not apply to the pending appeal, and the Civil Courts retained jurisdiction; this contention failed against the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the Letters Patent Bench could examine the interlocutory order made by the Single Judge directing reference to the Revenue Officer.

Analysis: The order directing reference was interlocutory and did not terminate the proceedings. Such an order could be challenged in the appeal from the final decree or order. The absence of a separate appeal against that interlocutory order did not prevent the Letters Patent Bench from considering its correctness, and the point had in any event been raised before the learned Single Judges. Section 105(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 did not bar such examination in the present case.

Conclusion: The Letters Patent Bench was competent to consider the interlocutory order, and this contention also failed.

Final Conclusion: In the absence of any express or necessarily implied retrospective operation, the amended Act did not displace the Civil Court's jurisdiction in pending appeals, and the challenge to the Bench's competence to examine the interlocutory order was rejected. The appeal therefore could not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: A statute ousting civil jurisdiction will not be applied to pending appellate proceedings unless such intention is expressed in clear words or arises by necessary implication; interlocutory orders may be examined in an appeal from the final decree where they do not terminate the proceedings.

---