RUKMANI DEVI Vs. DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Bhagmal is alleged to have obtained a loan from the respondents for a printing press under the provisions of the State Aid to Industries Act, 1961, hereinafter called the Act, and the house of the appellant was allegedly mortgaged for the said transaction. Shri Bhagmal died without leaving any issue or property. It is submitted that after the death of Shri Bhagmal the declaration was made under the provisions of the Act and execution application filed in the civil court under S.25 of the said Act. No application was made by the respondents for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased despite knowledge. It is submitted that no declaration was made against the appellant and her property could not have been sold or attached in execution of the declaration made against the deceased. The order impugned is alleged to be against the provisions of law and the Act.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

(3.) Mr. A.V. Gupta learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the present appeal is not maintainable in view of the amendment of Ss.2 and 47 of the C.P.C. vide Act No. XI of 1983. There is no force in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent as this petition was filed in this court on 22-4-1978 and the amendment Act No. XI of 1983 came into force on 13-4-1983. Section 91 of the Act No. XI of 1983 provided that notwithstanding the provisions of the amendment Act, the amendment made to Cl. (2) of S.2 of the principal Act by S.2 of the amendment Act shall not affect any appeal against the determination of any such question as is referred to in S.47 and every such appeal has to be dealt with as if the said S.2 had not come into force. This follows, therefore, that the amendment Act No. XI of 1983 would not effect the pendency of the appeals under the unamended C.P.C. It is not disputed that under the unamended CPC this appeal was maintainable. The objection of the counsel of the respondent is therefore rejected.