SAINUDDIN Vs. POKKUNHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Our learned brother Namboodiripad J. referred this case to a Division Bench, when it came up before him for admission. Evidently this was because it was urged before the learned Judge that notwithstanding the amendment to S.100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 1976, S.100 as it stood prior to the amendment must apply in the matter of admission of second appeals arising from suits filed before the date of coming into force of the Amendment Act, 1976. The learned Judge felt the question important enough to be heard by a Division Bench. Counsel Sri. Balakrishna Menon urged before us that had the case been one which had come up for admission prior to 1-2-1977 the date on which the Amendment Act came into force, this Court would have admitted the appeal and it is only because of the change in the law that the question whether a substantial question of law arises for decision is posed. Therefore, we will first consider whether the plea that to the appeal before us S.100 as it stood prior to 1-2-1977 should apply is well founded.

(2.) Prior to amendment effected to the Code by the Amendment Act of 1976 S.100 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was in force in Kerala read thus:

(3.) S.6 of the General Clauses Act 1897 runs thus: