Saving clause cannot revive dissolved Board proceedings; civil court may proceed with the pending suit.

Section 65 of the Hyderabad Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 1956, expressly repealed the earlier Debt Conciliation Act and dissolved all Boards, so any proviso purporting to save pending proceedings before non-existent Boards was ineffective where it conflicted with the enacting part. The pending Board proceedings therefore lapsed, and there was no surviving legal basis to keep the civil suit in abeyance. The civil court could proceed with the suit already pending before it because the matter was no longer legally before the Board.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on repeal of the Debt Conciliation Act and dissolution of all Boards under Section 65 of the Hyderabad Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 1956, the pending proceedings before the Board survived under the saving clause for matters beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, and whether the civil court could proceed with the suit.

Analysis: Section 65 expressly repealed the earlier Act and dissolved all Boards. The proviso, though framed as a saving clause, could not be reconciled with that mandatory enacting part insofar as it purported to preserve proceedings before Boards for which no corresponding Board could continue to exist. A saving clause that is repugnant to the body of the statute is ineffective. As the Boards had ceased to function and no provision preserved their existence for such matters, the pending proceedings before them lapsed. Once those proceedings lapsed, there was no legal obstacle to the civil court taking up the suit already pending before it.

Conclusion: The civil court had jurisdiction to proceed with the suit, and the stay could not continue on the footing that the matter still remained pending before the Board.

---