Revisional jurisdiction saved for pending matters where the High Court had already called for the record before the amendment

The U.P. amendment transferring revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act to the District Judge did not divest the High Court of jurisdiction in revisions already filed before 4 June 1957 where the Court had previously called for the record. Section 6 of the U.P. General Clauses Act preserved proceedings already commenced and acts duly done under the repealed provision, so pending matters were saved from the jurisdictional transfer. The amended provision was not construed retrospectively, as that would unfairly prejudice litigants who had approached the then-existing forum before the change took effect.

---

---

Issues: Whether applications in revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act filed in the High Court before 4 June 1957 survived the substitution of Section 25 by the U.P. Amendment Act, 1957, and whether the High Court retained jurisdiction to proceed with matters in which the record had already been called for.

Analysis: The amended provision transferred revisional jurisdiction from the High Court to the District Judge, but the decision turned on the effect of Section 6 of the U.P. General Clauses Act. The Court held that the filing of a revision and the High Court's act of calling for the record were proceedings already commenced and were acts duly done under the repealed provision. The amendment was not read as expressing an intention to divest the High Court of jurisdiction in pending matters where it had already taken cognizance by calling for the record. The Court also emphasized that a retrospective construction would cause unfair hardship to litigants who had invoked the then-existing forum before the amendment took effect.

Conclusion: The High Court retained jurisdiction to hear revisions filed before 4 June 1957 in cases where, before that date, it had directed the records to be called for.

Final Conclusion: Pending revisions in which the High Court had already called for the record were saved from the jurisdictional transfer and could be proceeded with in the High Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an amendment withdraws revisional jurisdiction but the court has already taken a substantive step by calling for the record in a pending proceeding, the proceeding is protected by the saving principle for acts duly done and the court may continue to exercise jurisdiction in that matter.

---