TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an amendment to Section 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, during the pendency of the suit, deprived the civil court of jurisdiction and required the plaint to be returned to the proper court.
Analysis: The amendment was held to be procedural in nature. A change in procedure takes immediate effect and applies to pending proceedings because no party has a vested right in the old procedure. Once the amendment conferred jurisdiction on the revenue court even in suits by tenants against trespassers, the civil court could not continue with the trial. The distinction was drawn between a mere procedural change and a change that extinguishes the substantive right to sue, which would stand on a different footing.
Conclusion: The civil court lost jurisdiction after the amendment and was bound to return the plaint for presentation to the proper court.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the decrees of the courts below were set aside, and the matter was remanded with directions to return the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation before the competent court.
Ratio Decidendi: An amendment affecting only procedure applies to pending proceedings immediately, and once jurisdiction is transferred by such an amendment, the court previously seized of the suit must cease to proceed and return the plaint to the proper forum.
TaxTMI 
