Retrospective statutory amendment defeats res judicata and leaves no saving protection for a later revisional order

A retrospective amendment to the governing statute displaced the earlier judicial construction of the unamended provision, so the prior decision between the parties could not operate as res judicata against the amended law. The saving clause in the amending Act protected only decrees or orders passed before commencement, and a revisional order made after the amendment was outside that protection. The subordinate authority's findings were based on appreciation of evidence and no manifest error of law was shown. The revisional authority therefore lacked jurisdiction, and no independent ground existed to interfere with the subordinate authority's order.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether an earlier decision between the parties operated as res judicata after a retrospective amendment to the governing statute; (ii) whether the saving provision in the amending Act protected the revisional order; and (iii) whether the order of the subordinate authority suffered from a manifest error of law warranting interference.

Issue (i): whether an earlier decision between the parties operated as res judicata after a retrospective amendment to the governing statute.

Analysis: A judicial declaration on the meaning of a statute operates only so long as the statute remains in force in that form. Where the Legislature retrospectively alters the law, the earlier construction of the unamended provision ceases to govern the field. In such a situation, the prior decision cannot control the parties so as to defeat the effect of the retrospective amendment.

Conclusion: The earlier decision did not operate as res judicata after the retrospective amendment.

Issue (ii): whether the saving provision in the amending Act protected the revisional order.

Analysis: The saving clause preserved only decrees or orders passed before the commencement of the amending Act. The revisional order was made after the Act had come into force, and therefore did not fall within the protection of the saving provision.

Conclusion: The saving clause did not validate the revisional order.

Issue (iii): whether the order of the subordinate authority suffered from a manifest error of law warranting interference.

Analysis: The findings of the subordinate authority were based on appreciation of evidence, and no manifest error of law was shown in those findings.

Conclusion: No manifest error of law was made out.

Final Conclusion: The revisional authority lacked jurisdiction in view of the retrospective amendment, and no independent ground for interference with the subordinate authority's order was established; the appeal therefore failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A retrospective statutory amendment supersedes the prior judicial construction of the amended provision, and an earlier decision cannot be relied upon as res judicata to defeat the amended law.

---