D. K. Seth, J. - (1.) Mr. C. P. Ghildyal, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised very intricate but interesting question of law while supporting the petitioner's contention arising out of the present writ petition.
(2.) By an order dated 26th March, 1998, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanpur Nagar in O. S. No. 608 of 1997, the further proceedings of the said suit was stayed on the basis of a notification dated 23rd June, 1997. issued under Section 3 as a Relief Undertaking under U. P. Industrial Undertakings (Special Provisions for Prevention of Unemployment) Act, 1966.
(3.) According to Mr. Ghildyal, by virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the said Act, proceedings relating thereto pending before any Court, Tribunal, Officer or Authority shall accordingly be stayed or be continued subject to such modification, so however, that on the notification ceasing to have effect, all rights, privileges, obligations or liabilities so suspended or modified shall revive or revived in their modified form and be enforceable and all such proceedings as aforesaid shall thereafter be continued from the stage they were stayed and in computing the period of limitation for the enforcement of any such right, privilege, obligation or liability, the period during which it or the remedy for the enforcement thereof was suspended shall be excluded. This expression has to be given proper interpretation. He contends alternatively that the expression modified by such notification makes it imperative on the State to include such modifications so as to clarify their stand, in the matter of suspension.;