Pending suits survive territorial separation where no clear contrary intention appears, preserving jurisdiction over commenced proceedings.

A suit validly instituted while Burma remained part of British India was treated as capable of continuing in the Indian court after Burma's separation, even though it involved immovable property in Burma. The issue was one of statutory interpretation, not private international law. The separation alone did not indicate an intention to extinguish pending suits; the right to carry a duly commenced action to its normal termination was treated as vested. The Adaptation Order was not applied to defeat the suit, and the saving provision in the Interpretation Act supported continuance absent clear contrary intention. The jurisdictional objection therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a suit validly instituted while Burma was part of British India could continue in the Indian court after Burma ceased to be part of India, notwithstanding the inclusion of immovable property situated in Burma.

Analysis: The pendency of the suit raised a question of statutory interpretation, not of private international law. The separation of Burma did not by itself show an intention to extinguish pending suits, and the court treated the suitor's right to have a duly commenced action carried to its normal termination as a vested right. The Adaptation Order was not read as governing a case of this kind, and the saving provision in the Interpretation Act was treated as supporting the continuance of proceedings unless a clear contrary intention appeared. The contrary authorities relied on were distinguished as dealing with different procedural situations begun after the separation or with execution proceedings.

Conclusion: The Indian court retained jurisdiction to proceed with the pending suit, including the Burma properties, and the objection to jurisdiction failed.

---