K. N. Seth, J. - (1.) THE following ques tion has been referred to this Bench for its opinion: - "Is Section 6 of U. P. Act No. 37 of 1972 ultra vires of the Constitution being violative of Article 14 thereof -
(2.) PRIOR to its amendment by S. 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws Amendment Act (Act No. 37 of 1972), Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure was amended by U. P. Act 14 of 1970. Sec tion 3 of the aforesaid Act provid ed that for the words 'High Court' wherever occurring in Section 115, the word 'High Court or District Court' shall be subs tituted and that at the end the following proviso shall be inserted: "Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed to empower the District Court to call for the record of any case arising out of an original suit of the value of twenty thousand rupees or above." U. P. Act 37 of 1972 passed by the State Legislature received the assent of the President of India on 12 -9 -1972 and wat published in the U. P. Gazette dated 16 -9 -1972. A notification under Section 3 (1) of the Act appointing 20 -9 -1972 as the date of its enforcement was published in the Gazette of the same date. As amended by Sec. 6 of the U. P. Act 37 of 1972, Section 115, Civil Procedure Code now reads: - "The High Court in cases arising out of original suits of the value of twenty thous and rupees and above and the District Court in any other case may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court or District Court, as the case may be and in which the appeal lies thereto and if such subordinate court appears; (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdic tion so vested, or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregu larity, the High Court or the District Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit."
(3.) IT was contended that Section 6 of the Amending Act results in discrimina tion and is ultra vires of the Constitution being violative of Article 14 thereof. It was urged that suits valued at less than twenty thousand rupees are tribal not only by a Civil Judge but also by a District Judge. If such a suit is tried by the Civil Judge after the coming into force of the Amending Act, 1972, a party has a right to challenge the decision by filing a revision before the Dis trict Judge, but if the same suit is tried by the District Judge, no revision would be maintainable. Similarly if a suit is tried by a Munsif, an appeal against his decree could be heard either by a Civil Judge or by a District Judge. An order passed by a Civil Tudse in his isolate jurisdiction could be challenged before the District Judge in revi sion but no revision would be maintainable if the order is passed by a District Judge in an appeal against the decree of a Munsif. It was further contended that if a part of the suit property is in Uttar Pradesh and part of it is in some other State, a party under the law can institute the suit in either of the two States. If the suit is instituted in a State other than Uttar Pradesh, the right of revision of the party remains unaffected but if the suit is filed in the State of Uttar Pra desh he may be totally deprived of his right to approach to superior Court in revision. The discrimination resulting from Sec. 6 of the Amending Act renders that provision ultra vires as being violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.;