Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 5

ORDER

By this application the plaintiff is seeking restoration of the suit which was dismissed for non-prosecution/default on 5-11-1979. It is not disputed before me that the suit was fixed for evidence on 5-11-1979, when it was dismissed on account of absence of plaintiff and his Advocate. The present application for restoration was made on 7-1-1980, which is admittedly beyond the period of 30 days prescribed for making such an application. The application is supported by an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act and the affidavit of the same date. It is, however, not disputed before me that on the date the application for the restoration of suit was made, section 5 was not applicable to Order IX, rule 9, C. P. C. by an amendment brought about in C. P. C. on 26th March, 1980 by Ordinance X of 1980. It is contended by Mr. Ashfaq Hussain, the learned counsel for the plaintiff that this amendment made on 26th March, 1980 will also be applicable to the present case as on that date the application for restoration of suit was pending in the Court. The basis for this argument is that the amendments brought about by Ordinance X of 1980 in the Code of Civil Procedure are procedural in nature and are, therefore, retrospective in A operation. I am unable to accept this contention. . The period of limitation or filing application under Order IX, rule 9 in this case admittedly expired on 4-12-1979. Even if I accept the contention of the learned counsel the amendments introduced by Ordinance X of 1980 are purely procedural in nature, even then it does not mean that the past and closed transaction should be reopened and decided in accordance with the amended law. No such interpretation arises on the language of the amending Ordinance.