Court of appeal may given effect to such a law even after the judgment of the Court of first instance.

Citation 

AIR 1966 SUPREME COURT 1423

SUPREME COURT(From Punjab)*

K. SUBBA RAO, J., M. HIDAYATULLAH, J. and R. S. BACHAWAT, J.

Civil Appeal No. 246 of 1964, D/-14-1-1966

Dayawati and another v. Inderjit and others

(A)Usurious Loans Act (10 of 1918), S.3(asamended by S.5, Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act 7of 1934)Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act (7 of1934), S.6, S.5 - Debt Laws - Punjab Act 7 of 1934extended to Delhi on 8-6-1956 New law affecting substantive rights retrospectively, commencing after judgment of trial Court Appellate Court when must given effect to such new law - Difference between suit and appeal - Expression 'suits pending's in S. 6,Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 7 of 1934 Connotation of All stages of suit which ordinarily take place before executable document comes into existence are contemplated by expression - Effect on applicability of amended S. 3, Usurious Loans Act,1918.

If a new law speaks in language, which, expressly or by clear intendment, takes in even pending matters, the Court of trial as well as the Court of appeal must have regard to an intention so expressed, and the Court of appeal may given effect to such a law even after the judgment of the Court of first instance. The distinction between laws affecting procedure and those affecting vested rights does not matter when the Court is invited by law to take away from a successful plaintiff, what he has obtained under a judgment.

(1882) 9 QBD 672 and AIR 1936 PC 49, Rel. on.; Maxwell: Interpretation of Statutes (11th Edn.), pp. 211 and 213, Ref.

(Para 10)