M.C.Desai, J. - (1.) This is an application for revising under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act a decree passed by a Court of small causes. The decree was passed on 27-4-1957 in a suit instituted in 1956 in the Court of Small Causes. Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act as it then existed laid down that the High Court for the purposes of satisfying itself that a decree or order made in any case decided by a Court of small causes was according to law, might call for the case and pass such order with respect thereto as it thought fit. The U. P. Legislature passed the Provincial Small Cause Courts (U. P. Amendment) Act (No. 17 of 1957), which amended Section 25 by substituting the words "the District Judge" in place of the words "the High Court", "himself" for the word "itself" and "he" for "it". The U. P. Act received the President's assent on 30-5-1957 and was published in the Gazette of 4-6-1957. It was to come into force at once; so it came into force on 4-6-1957. The present application was filed in this Court on 27-7-1957 and a preliminary objection has been raised by the opposite party to its maintainability. The opposite party pleads that after the amendment of Section 25 no application for revision can be filed in this Court and that this application ought to have been filed in the Court of the District Judge. In reply it was contended by the applicant that on the date on which the suit was instituted and on the date on which it was decreed against it, an application for revision could have been filed in this Court and that the right of the party to file an application in this Court remained unaffected by the subsequent amendment. It is not in dispute that if the case is governed by the law in force on the date on which the application was filed, it could not be filed in this Court and ought to have been filed in the District Judge's Court and that if it is governed by the law in force at the time of the institution of the suit or at the time of its being decreed, the application would lie in this Court. The Amendment Act does not say anything, about its effect or enforcement except that it was to come into force at once. The obvious meaning of the Act coming into force on 4-6-1957, the date of its publication, is that on and after that date the District Judge has the power of calling for a case decided by a Court of Small Causes and revising a decree or order made by it. There is nothing in the Amendment Act to suggest that it would not apply to a case instituted or decided before it came into force and it would not be open to us to read any such qualification in it. The law in force on 27-7-1957 was that he District Judge had the power to revise the order and there was no law in force under which this Court would have the power. Previously this Court had the power, but it was taken away by the Amendment Act before the application was filed.
(2.) All the law governing the question is contained in Section 6 of the U. P. General Clauses Act. It deals with the effect of repeal of Acts. Admittedly it does not deal expressly with the effect of amendment of an Act, but there is no other law which lays down the effect of amendment of an Act. It cannot be believed that the Legislature provided for the effect of repeal of Acts but did not make any provision for amendment of Acts. Amendment of an Act is certainly not an uncommon or unimportant matter which need not be provided for; I venture to suppose that amendment of an Act is more frequent than repeal of an Act. The question of the effect of an amendment is not different from that of the effect of repeal of an Act and is certainly as important as tbe other. If it cannot be accepted that the Legislature did not provide for the effect of amendment of an Act, the effect must have been provided for in Section 6. Amendment of an Act consists of two steps, (1) of repeal of the provision amended and (2) of enactment of the provision in the amended form. Take the amendment in question; the law empowering the High Court to call for the case and revise the decree or order has been repealed and in its place the law empowering the District Judge to call for the case and revise the decree or order has been enacted. Thus the amendment consists of repeal followed immediately by enactment of another provision. So far as it involves repeal, the effect of the repeal is governed by the provisions of Section 6. In Danmal Parshotamdas v. Baburam Chhotelal, AIR 1936 All 3 (A); Sulaiman C. J. said at page 7 : "It seems that Section 6 (e) would apply to those cases only where a previous law has been simply repealed and there is no fresh legislation to take its place. Where an old law has been merely repealed, then the repeal Would not affect any previous right acquired nor would it even affect a suit instituted subsequently in respect of a right previously so acquired. But where there is a new law which not only repeals the old law, but is substituted in place of the old law, Section 6 (e), General Clauses Act, is not applicable, and we would have to fall back on the provisions of the new Act itself." With great respect I cannot agree with this dictum. Section 6 speaks merely of repeal of an Act and it would be unjustifiable for us to say that it refers to a particular repeal i.e. repeal not followed by re-enactment. The opening words of Section 6 itself lay down that the provisions of the repealing Act will over-ride the effect of repeal stated in the section; it is, therefore, not correct to say that when an Act is repealed and another Act is re-enacted, Section 9 cannot apply and that the effect of the repeal must be found out from the provisions of the new Act. An Act may be repealed not merely by a statute, the only provision of which is that the Act is repealed but also by a statute which besides repealing the Act enacts provisions to be substituted. As a matter of fact a majority, of repealing Acts are those which re-enact the, law. In essence there is no distinction be-tween such laws and laws which merely profess to amend. If the amendment of the existing law is small, the Act professes to amend; if it is extensive, it repeals the law and re-enacts it. In Indra Sohan Lal v. Custodian of Evacuee Property, Delhi, (S) AIR 1956 SC 77 (B), the Supreme Court ruled out the notion that Section 6 is inapplicable where a repeal is followed by a fresh Act. The case of Danmal Purshottamdas (A), was expressly over-ruled by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Mohar Singh, (S) AIR 1955 SC 84 (C). The question whether an amendment has retrospective effect or affects past acts or any situations created by any past acts has always been decided by reference to the provisions of Section 6. Section 6 (c) lays down that repeal of an Act shall not affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the repealed Act and Sub-section (c), that it shall not affect any remedy or legal proceeding commenced before the repealing Act shall have come into operation, in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation or liability and it may be enforced, and the legal proceeding may he continued and concluded, as if the repealing Act had not been passed. It is under these provisions that the questions whether a party had a vested right and whether the vested right was affected by the repeal of the Act would arise for consideration. I have, therefore, no doubt that we have to look to the provisions of Section 6 only for deciding the preliminary objection.
(3.) The only provisions of Section 6 which may have any application to the facts in the instant case are those contained in Clauses (c) and (e). If any right had accrued in favour of the applicant before the Amendment Act was passed, it will not be affected by the amendment because the amending Act does not profess to affect it. The remedy and tbe legal proceedings which cannot be affected by the amendment must be in respect of a right, privilege or obligation acquired or incurred before the amendment; such a remedy may be enforced, and such a legal proceeding may be continued and concluded, as if the amending Act had not been passed.;