https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289479 Where an amendment to Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act substituted the District Judge for the High Court as the revisional forum, a revision filed in the High Court after the amendment was not maintainable because no vested right existed to insist on that forum. The amendment operated from its publication date and contained no saving clause preserving the High Court's revisional jurisdiction for pending or prior matters. Section 6 of the U.P. General Clauses Act did not assist the applicant, as the change was treated as a transfer of jurisdiction rather than a retrospective alteration of substantive rights. The High Court revision was therefore rejected. en-us Fri, 01 Nov 1957 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Aug 2020 15:54:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289479 Where an amendment to Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act substituted the District Judge for the High Court as the revisional forum, a revision filed in the High Court after the amendment was not maintainable because no vested right existed to insist on that forum. The amendment operated from its publication date and contained no saving clause preserving the High Court's revisional jurisdiction for pending or prior matters. Section 6 of the U.P. General Clauses Act did not assist the applicant, as the change was treated as a transfer of jurisdiction rather than a retrospective alteration of substantive rights. The High Court revision was therefore rejected. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 01 Nov 1957 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289479