Deleted reference machinery and court-fee refund on remand: procedural amendment and preliminary-point principles in land litigation.

After the 1958 amendment deleted the reference provisions in the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the commentary notes that the saving clause preserved pending proceedings and the forum already seized of them, but not the former machinery for referring bhumidhari issues to the Civil Court; as a procedural change, the deletion applied to pending matters absent contrary intent, so a later reference under the omitted provisions was treated as unauthorised. It also explains that Section 13 of the Court-Fees Act allows refund on remand where the suit was disposed of on a determinative preliminary point, and that this expression is not limited to pure questions of law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, after the deletion of Sections 332, 332-A and 332-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act by the 1958 amendment, the Judicial Officer had jurisdiction to remit the question of bhumidhari right to the Civil Court in a pending suit. (ii) Whether, on remand of the suit, the appellant was entitled to a certificate for refund of court-fee under Section 13 of the Court-Fees Act.

Issue (i): Whether, after the deletion of Sections 332, 332-A and 332-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act by the 1958 amendment, the Judicial Officer had jurisdiction to remit the question of bhumidhari right to the Civil Court in a pending suit.

Analysis: The statutory scheme originally required certain title issues arising in revenue suits to be referred to the Civil Court, but the 1958 amendment deleted the reference machinery altogether. The saving clause in Section 87(1) preserved pending proceedings and the forum in which they were already pending, but it did not preserve the earlier procedural mechanism for making references. Procedural amendments apply retrospectively unless the statute clearly indicates otherwise. Since no reference had been made before the amendment came into force, the Judicial Officer could not later invoke the deleted provisions to send the bhumidhari issue to the Civil Court.

Conclusion: The reference was without jurisdiction and the Civil Court finding on bhumidhari right was a nullity.

Issue (ii): Whether, on remand of the suit, the appellant was entitled to a certificate for refund of court-fee under Section 13 of the Court-Fees Act.

Analysis: Section 13 of the Court-Fees Act entitles an appellant to a refund certificate when a suit is remanded for a second decision after the lower court has disposed of it on a preliminary point. The expression "preliminary point" is not confined to pure questions of law; it includes any determinative point that ends the suit without trial of the remaining issues. Here, the suit had been dismissed on the basis of the bhumidhari finding, leaving the other issues undecided, so the case fell within the statutory condition for refund.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to a certificate for refund of court-fee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the decree of the court below was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision according to law, with costs throughout to the appellant and entitlement to refund certificate affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural amendment deleting the reference mechanism applies to pending suits retrospectively, and a remand following disposal on a determinative preliminary point attracts refund of court-fee under Section 13 of the Court-Fees Act.

---