Case Details

Citation(s)
1952 SLG 72 1952 SLD 72 1952 PLD 245
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision Petition No. 236 of 1951, decided on 11th March, 1952, under section 115 of Act V of 1908, for revision of the order of A. Lazarus, Esquire, District Judge, Gujran­wala, dated the 8th August, 1951
M. R. KAYANI, J
Mahmud Ali, for Petitioners

NURMUHAMMAD and another

VS

ZAFAR ALI

Law:

Section:

(a) Interpretation of statutes----- ----Amending Act-Retrospective operation-Principle-If touching existing right, operation only prospective unless otherwise expressly stated-If amend­ment matter of procedure only, operation impliedly retrospective. If the Amending Act touches a right in existence at the passing of the Act; it is more than a mere matter of procedure, and operates only prospectively unless a, different. intention, is expressed ; but that if it is a matter of procedure, its effect is impliedly retrospective. (b) Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act (XVI of 1952)--- ----Not retrospective in operation-Right of Revision not a matter of procedure only. The Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act (XVI of 1952) is not retrospective in operation. A right of 'appeal is a vested right and in principle a petition of revision is as little a matter of procedure as a petition of appeal. It is wrong to suggest that providing a right of revision is merely an alteration in procedure, for if .by another Amending Act, the amendment in question is repealed, it would be correct to say that the right of preferring a petition in revision is taken away, and incorrect to say that the procedure has undergone a change. Stretching back of rights cannot be imagined except by legal fiction, and legal fiction is made to exist by legal methods. If not so made, it is pure fiction unless, of course, the matter is only procedural. Colonial Sugar Refning Co. Ltd. v. Irving (1905) Appeal Cases 369 ; Costa Rica v. Evlanger 1874 3 Ch. D. 69 ; In re a Debtor 1936 I Ch. 237, ref. JUDGMENT M. R. KAYANI, J.-These four petitions in revision were instituted against appellate orders passed under the West Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, XXIII of 1949, before a Full Bench of this Court held that such petitions were not competent under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, since a Rent Controller was not a Court Subordinate to the High Court. As by this time it had become known that the Legislative Assembly, then in session, had before it an amend­ment of the Act providing for revision, these petitions were adjourned from time to time so as to give the petitioners a…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492