Supervening law in pending appeals and money-lender interest ceilings applied to the contractual loan, not a reduced family liability.

An appellate court may take account of a supervening change in law while the appeal remains pending and may apply the law in force at the time of adjudication to mould relief. Section 7 of the Bihar Money-Lenders Act, 1939 was construed as referring to the loan advanced or evidenced by the bond, so the statutory ceiling on interest applied to the contractual loan itself and not merely to the smaller portion later found binding on the joint family. Procedural objections under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Code did not defeat jurisdiction where the statutory certificate had been granted and the required steps were substantially complied with.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an appellate court may take into account legislative changes that occur after the judgment under appeal and apply the new law while disposing of the appeal; (ii) Whether Section 7 of the Bihar Money-Lenders Act, 1939 limits the amount of interest recoverable in the present mortgage suit by reference to the full loan advanced, the amount mentioned in the document, or only the portion found binding on the joint family; (iii) Whether the absence of an order by the High Court declaring the appeal admitted, and the procedural objections under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, prevented the Federal Court from entertaining the appeal.

Issue (i): Whether an appellate court may take into account legislative changes that occur after the judgment under appeal and apply the new law while disposing of the appeal.

Analysis: The appellate power was treated as extending beyond mere correction of error, and as enabling the court to make such order as justice requires on the materials existing at the time of appeal. On that basis, a change in law occurring during the pendency of the appeal could be noticed and applied where the matter remained sub judice. The Court treated the appeal as a rehearing and accepted that the law in force when the appellate court adjudicates may govern the form of relief.

Conclusion: The Court held that the supervening Bihar legislation could be taken into account in disposing of the appeal.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 7 of the Bihar Money-Lenders Act, 1939 limits the amount of interest recoverable in the present mortgage suit by reference to the full loan advanced, the amount mentioned in the document, or only the portion found binding on the joint family.

Analysis: Section 7 was read as referring to the loan advanced, the loan mentioned in the document, or the loan evidenced by the document, and not to the smaller amount ultimately found binding under Hindu law notions of family liability. The Court distinguished cases where liabilities had been split or where distinct shares were in issue. Here, the bonds represented one debt and the contractual amount advanced was the proper basis for applying the statutory ceiling on interest, subject to any reduction of the contractual rate on the facts found.

Conclusion: The Court held that the statutory ceiling operated on the full amounts advanced and mentioned in the bonds, and the appellants could not confine the limit to the lesser family-binding portion alone.

Issue (iii): Whether the absence of an order by the High Court declaring the appeal admitted, and the procedural objections under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, prevented the Federal Court from entertaining the appeal.

Analysis: The scheme of Order 45 was read as distinguishing between the stage before admission and the stage after admission, but the admission order was not treated as a condition precedent to the Federal Court's jurisdiction once the statutory certificate had been granted and the relevant procedural steps substantially complied with. The Court treated the disputed procedural requirements as directory in the circumstances of the case and held that they did not oust jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The procedural objections were rejected and did not bar hearing of the appeal.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to a limited extent on the question of interest, the decree was to be revised on that basis, and the matter was remitted for the High Court to pass the revised decree accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate court deciding a pending appeal may apply supervening law to mould relief as justice requires, and where a statute fixes a ceiling by reference to the loan advanced or evidenced, the ceiling is applied to the contractual loan itself rather than to a reduced amount later found recoverable against family property.

---