statute creates a liability or a right and at the same time prescribes a
special or particular method or machinery for enforcing it, then that method or
machinery alone must be followed and none or.
Vs. Ezhar Mia (1956) 8 DLR 82.
of, takes effect prospectively in pending suits: Change in
the law of procedure affects pending suits prospectively unless the legislature
indicates otherwise, either expressly or impliedly.
Poddar Vs. Tripura State Bank (1959) 11 DLR 204.
compliance with the rules of imperative: Enactments regulating procedure
in courts are imperative and not merely directory. If for instance, an appeal
from a decision be given with provisions requiring the fulfilment of certain
conditions, such as giving notice of appeal and entering into recognisances, or
transmitting documents within a certain time, a strict compliance would be
imperative and non-compliance would be fatal to the appeal.
Mia Vs. Mafizuddin Dhupi, (1959) 11 DLR 438.