KUNMUN SINGH Vs. RAM SEWAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by a defendant in revision of a decree passed by a Civil Judge on appeal. The suit was filed by the opposite party against the applicant on 28-2-56 for recovery o Rs. 1700 and odd, and was dismissed by the trial court on 20-9-58. The opposite party filed an appeal and the appellate court allowed it on 13-4-60 and decreed the suit. This application was filed on 15-7-60 for revision of the decree of the appellate court.

(2.) Prior to 1954 the law was (vide Section 102, C. P. C.) that a second appeal would lie in a suit "cognizable by Courts of Small Causes when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the original suit" exceeded Rs. 500/-. Admittedly the present suit was of the nature cognizable by a court of small causes, and since the amount of the subject-matter exceeded Rs. 500/- a second appeal was maintainable according to the law in force prior to 1954- In 1954 the State Legislature passed an Act increasing the limit of Rs. 500/- to Rs. 2000/-; the Act was reserved for the consideration of the President and received his assent The effect of this amendment was that no second appeal would lie in the suit, because the subject-matter was less than Rs. 2000/-. This was the state of law when the suit was filed. During its pendency the Central Legislature passed Act 66 of 1956, which came into force on 1-1-57, amending the limitation of Rs 500/- in Section 102, C. P. C. to Rs. 1000/- According to this law a second appeal would lie. Admittedly, no revision would lie if a second appeal lies, and a revision would lie only if a second appeal does not lie. The applicant filed the revision contending that the State Act of 1954 would govern the matter and not the Central Act of 1956 and he is supported in his view by a judgment of our brother Mukerji in Shri Ram v. Gauri Shanker AIR 1961 All 320.

(3.) It is conceded that the question is to be decided in accordance with the provisions of Article 254 of the Constitution. The State Act and the Central Act both deal with "Civil procedure, including all matters included in the C. P. C. at the commencement of this Constitution." vide Serial No. 13 of the Concurrent List III, Schedule VII. What Sub-article (2) of Article 254 lays down with respect to a law made by a State Legislature with respect to such a matter, which has been referred for the President's consideration and has received his assent, is that the State law will prevail over a repugnant Central Law which is earlier in point of time. When the State Legislature passed the Act of 1954 the earlier Central Law which was existing was that contained in Section 102, C. P. C. of 1908; therefore, by virtue of Sub-article (2) the State law prevailed over the old Section 102, C. P. C. and no second appeal would lie in this case, and only a revision would lie. AS regards the Central Act of 1956, since it was an Act later than the State Act, it was not governed by Sub-article (2) at all and the State Act would not. prevail over the Central Act of 1956. The provision of Sub-article (2) referred to above is subject to the proviso that nothing in it shall prevent the Parliament from enacting at any time subsequently any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law made by the State Legislature. It is this proviso that governed the Central Act of 1956. It permitted the Parliament to enact the Act of 1956 with respect to ''civil procedure, 'including all matters included in the C. P. C." even though it might add to amend or vary an Act made by the State Legislature. The Central Act of 1956 is the law which has reference to the same matter in respect of which the State Legislature passed the Act of 1954. The Parliament was fully competent to enact the Act of 1956 even though its effect was to amend, vary or repeal the State Act of 1954. Since the Constitution itself permitted the Parliament to enact this Act, it follows that it will supersede the State Act and the State Act shall not have any effect after 1-1-57. Sub-article (1.) of Article 254 o the Constitution provides that when a law made by a State Legislature is repugnant to any law made by the Parliament which the Parliament is competent to enact, then the law made by the Parliament, whether made before or after the law made by the State Legislature, shall prevail except in a case governed by Sub-article (2). We have found that Sub-article (2) does not govern the matter and the Central 'Act of 1956 was within the competence of the Parliament; therefore, by virtue of Sub-article (1) it will prevail and not the State Act of 1954. The result is that a second appeal lay in the present case and the revision is not maintainable.