TARUN KUMAR GUPTA Vs. VIJAY KUMAR BANDIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M.P. No.5205 of 2022 has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dtd. 31/10/2022 passed in Civil Suit No.192A/2017 passed by learned 1 st Civil Judge, Class II to Vth Additional Judge, Morena District Morena and M.P. No.3021 of 2022 has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dtd. 1/7/2022 passed in Civil Suit No.193A/2017 by learned 1 st Civil Judge, Class II, Morena District Gwalior whereby the applications preferred by the petitioners under Sec. 151 CPC have been rejected by the learned trial Court holing that the amendment in Civil Procedure Code is not retrospective but prospective.

(2.) Short facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner seeking eviction on the ground of 12(1)(a), (b) and (f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act. Written statement was filed by the petitioner/defendant denying the averments as pleaded in the plaint and the learned Trial Court framed the issues. After framing of issues, plaintiff-Vijay Kumar Bandil alongwith two other witnesses i.e. Pradeep Kumar Kamal and Kishore Bandil submitted their statements in chief as per the provision under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC. The petitioner submitted an application under Sec. 151 CPC stating that by notification dtd. 4/5/2022, Rule 4-A has been inserted and according to which, the evidence of the witnesses in attendance shall be taken orally in open Court in its presence and under the personal direction and superintendence of the judge and affidavit is not admissible in evidence and as CPC is a procedural law, therefore the said amended provision will apply retrospectively. The learned Trial Court heard the arguments on the application and rejected the same with the finding that the amendment as brought in the procedural law is prospective and not retrospective. Hence, assailing the orders dtd. 31/10/2022 and 1/7/2022, the present petitions have been filed.

(3.) Learned senior counsel Shri N.K. Gupta on behalf of petitioner had laid the foundation of his submissions by asserting, that it was a settled proposition of law, that alteration of substantive law is always presumed and treated as having only prospective implications, unless the legislative enactment itself, expressly or impliedly mandates it to be retrospective and in contradistinction to the above, it was submitted, that an amendment to a procedural enactment is always presumed and treated to have retrospective effect, except when intended otherwise, expressly or impliedly, through the legislation itself.