MUMTAJUDDIN Vs. FATIMA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference by the Second Judge of the City Civil Court. The reference is worded as follows:

(2.) WE have heard the arguments of the parties at length. Shri Shankarrao Borgaonkar, the learned Counsel on behalf of the Plaintiffs, states that the question of the validity or otherwise of Section 13 of the said Act does not arise at all in this case. His contention is mainly that oven conceding that Section 13 is valid, is not applicable to the facts of this case. Raja Bahadur Bishweshwarnath, the learned Advocate on behalf of the Defendant argues and submits that Section 13 has been held valid in Kamal Yar Jung's case, vide Ahmedunissa Begum v. State of Hyderabad ILR, 1952 Hyd 595 FB. In view of these statements of the learned Counsel of the parties, we have to consider whether the reference in question has been properly made, especially after the amended Section 113 of the Civil Procedure Code, as amended by Act No. 24 of 1951, has come into force. The wording of the proviso to Section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure is as follows: