M J DELAFLORE Vs. AMIR MOHAMMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution in somewnat unusual circumstances, which can be stated briefly. A suit O. S. No. 21 of 1968 was pending between Kichenaramanoudjam Chettiar (Plaintiff) and alamelu Ammale and four other persons, in the Court of the Premier Instance at karaikal. That suit was instituted on 7-4-1967. The Pondicherry Legislature passed the Pondicherry Civil Courts Act, 1966 (Act 12 of 1966 ). This Act provided for the replacement of the existing hierarchy of Courts dealing with civil law in the pondicherry Union Territory (which was formerly a part of the overseas territories of France) by a hierarchy of Courts following the same pattern as in the Indian union. To illustrate this, under Section 6 (1) of the Act, the Tribunal Superieur d' appel becomes the Court of the District Judge, the Tribunal of the Premier instance becomes the Court of a Sub-Judge and the Court of the Judges de Paix becomes the Munsif's Court. This Act was to come into force on such date as the Pondicherry Government by notification in the official gazette may appoint. Thereafter, the Parliament enacted the Pondicherry (Extension of Laws) Act, 1968 (Act 26 of 1968) which came into force on 5-9-1968. The Pondicherry Civil Courts Act was also brought into force on the same date. Section 3 (1) of the Pondicherry (Extension of Laws) Act extended the various enactments mentioned in Part I of the Schedule, to the Pondicherry state subject to the modification mentioned in the schedule, from the abovesaid date. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is one of enactments mentioned in the schedule. That Code as in force in the State of Madras on the 1st day of August 1966 was extended to Pondicherry. A certain modification was made in column 5 of the schedule by stating that any judgment, decree or order passed or made before the enactment under the preexisting law in Pondicherry shall be deemed to have been made or passed under the Civil Procedure Code; but any period of limitation in respect of such judgment, decree or order under the pre existing law should not be treated as having been extended. Correspondingly there was also introduced in the pondicherry (Extension of Laws) Act a repealing and saving provision as follows:--

(2.) ORIGINALLY, the revision petition, purporting to be under Article 227 of the constitution, was filed in this Court by one Ameer Mohammed, one of the lawyers who figured as the third petitioner in the LA. In an interlocutory order passed by me on 21-1-1969 I directed the petitioner's counsel to supply information as to whether Ameer Mohammed, the petitioner in the civil revision petition, had any interest in 9. S. No. 21 of 1968 In which the aforesaid I. A. is sought to be filed. Thereupon, the petitioner's counsel substituted, in the place of Ameer Mohamed, two persons D. M. J. Delaflore and A. Veda, who were advocates appearing for the parties in O. S. No. 21 of 1968. The other advocates who appeared as petitioners in the I. A. , as well as the parties in the suit were impleaded as respondents. The matter has thereafter come for hearing. The petitioners dispensed with notice to respondents 6 to 8. Since the question involved an important principle of procedure under the new enactments notice was also given to the learned government pleader of Pondicherry. At the time of the hearing of the petition, Sri n. Arunachalam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned government Pleader for Pondicherry submitted their arguments.

(3.) TO begin with. It must be pointed out that the petition as framed in the lower court was by five members of the Bar, two of whom alone were counsel appearing for the parties in O. S. No. 21 of 1968 and the other three were counsel not on the record of the suit but were counsel practising in Karaikal. It is very doubtful whether they have any locus standi to file an application of the present kind. Another preliminary objection to the proceeding will be that the prayer in the petition, which I have extracted above, is of a very vague and general kind which is almost academic in the sense that the Court is asked to lay down a general proposition that all pending suits in Pondicherry Courts shall continue to be dealt with under the procedure of the French Law ie. , under the French Civil Code and not under the Indian Civil Procedure Code notwithstanding the specific provision in the Extension of Laws Act to which I have above referred. It will be very improper to give what amounts to a general legal opinion touching a general problem in an I. A. purporting to be in a suit but without reference to any specific points in this suit. No specific particulars as to the rights affected by the repealing and saving enactment so far as the parties in the pending suit are concerned are set forth.