Kirty, J. - (1.) BEFORE this Bench, constituted by the learned Chief Justice, following questions fall for considera tion and answer:- (1) Will Civil Revisions arising out of suits of the value of less than twenty thousand rupees or arising out of other proceedings filed in. this Court before the U. P. Civil Laws Amendment Act No. 37 of 1972 came into force, not lie here and will have to be sent to the District Courts? (2) In case the order sought to be revised is passed by a District Judge or any efficer exercising the powers of District Judge in an appeal or revision arising out of an original suit of the value of less than twenty thousand rupees, where will a revision lie. if at all? (3) Does no revision lie from pro ceedings other than original suits ?
(2.) THE above questions have risen on account of the amendment in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Proce dure (hereinafter referred to as the Code] made by Section 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972. This Act. passed by the State Legislature, received the assent of the President of India on 12-9-1972 and was published in the U. P. Gazette dated 16-9-1972. The notification under Sec tion 1 (3) of the Act appointing 20-9-1972 as the date of its enforcement was published in the Gazette of the same date. In the statement of objects and reasons given in the Bill published on July 28. 1972 it was mentioned:- "In the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 an Uttar Pradesh amendment made in Section 115 conferred concurrent powers of revision on District Judges along with the High Court. It is now proposed that in cases of a value below Us. 20.000.00 this power may be exer cised by District Judges alone and in cases of higher valuation this power :may be exercised by the High Court. This will eliminate one of the causes of delay in the disposal of suits." Section 115 of the Code was previously .amended by Section 3 of U. P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act 1970 (U. P. Act 14 of 1970). Section 115 of the Code, in its original form, read as below:- "The High Court may call for the :record of any case which has been de cided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto and if such subordinate Court .appears- (a) to have exercised a iurisdiction not vested in it by law. or (b) to have failed to exercise a ju risdiction so vested, or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its iurisdiction illegally or with ma terial irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit." Section 3 of U. P. Act 14 of 1970 pro vided that for the words "High Court" wherever occurring in Section 115. the words "High Court or District Court" shall be substituted, and that at the end the following proviso shall be in serted : "Provided that nothing in this Sec tion 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." As amended by Section 6 of U. P. Act 37 of 1972. Section 115 now reads: "The High Court in cases arising out of original suits of the value of twenty thousand 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 Dis trict Court, as the case may be and in which no 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 jurisdiction so vested, or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with mate rial irregularity. the High Court or the District Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit."
(3.) THE first question expressly relates to civil revisions filed in this Court before September 20. 1972. i.e., before U. P. Act 37 of 1972 came into force. Intrinsically, there is nothing in the amended Section 115 nor in Act 37 of 1972 requiring revisions which were pending in this Court on the said date to be transferred to the District .Courts concerned; nor is it provided or even indicated as to how such revisions are to be dealt with by the High Court. Besides amending Section 115 of the Code, the Act also amends Sections 15 and 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act 1887 and Sections 3. 20. 34, 39 and 43 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 (Act XIII of 1972). It also amends Order XV of the Code and Section 25 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887. Section 9 of Act 37 of 1972 contains "transitory provisions" and expressly provides that certain suits (not being suits in which the recording of oral evi dence for any party has commenced or concluded previously) instituted before the date of commencement of the Act and pending in Courts having jurisdiction immediately before that date "shall upon the conferment of jurisdiction or enhanced pecuniary jurisdiction on a Civil Judge. Munsif. District Judge or Additional District Judge or on a Court of Small Causes under the said provi sions (i.e. provisions of the Act) stand transferred to such court and shall be decided by that Court." The said Sec tion 9. however, applies to suits only and. at that, only those suits as are specifically mentioned therein. It is not possible to hold nor is there any reason to suppose that the Legislature was not aware that on the date of the en forcement of the Act revisions filed in the High Court before that date would remain pending in that Court. The ab sence of any like provision in the Act in respect of such revisions cannot be view ed as or deemed to be accidental. On the contrary, the very act of the Legislature in enacting Section 9 making transitory provisions only in respect of certain specified suits, clearly reveals the in tention of the legislature that such re visions are to remain unaffected by the amendment made in Section 115 of the Code.;