JUDGMENT Collister, J.
1. The applicant instituted a suit against the opposite party on 17th April 1935 in a Court at Cawnpore. The written statement was filed on 16th September 1935 and on that date an objection was taken that under Section 7, United Provinces Agriculturists' Relief Act (Local Act No. 27 of 1934)--which had come into force on 30th April 1935--the suit ought to be tried in the District of Hamirpur where the defendants were residing. This objection found favour with the Sessions and Civil Judge of Cawnpore, who accordingly returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. Against that order an appeal was presented to the District Judge of Cawnpore, but it was dismissed, and against that order of dismissal the plaintiff has come to this Court in revision. Section 7, United Provinces Agriculturists' Relief Act, provides that Notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment for the time being in force, ever; suit for recovering an unsecured loan in which the defendant, or, where there are several defendants, any of the defendants is an agriculturist, shall be instituted and tried in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction (a) the agriculturist defendants, or any of the agriculturists defendants, where there are more than one such defendants, actually and voluntarily resides; or (b)....
2. It is argued by learned Counsel for the applicant that upon a correct interpretation of the words "instituted and tried" a suit which at the time was properly instituted in a certain Court should be tried by that Court. In other words he pleads that the criterion is whether the Agriculturists' Relief Act was or was not in force at the time of institution. In Jamuna Prasad v. Bhawani Dayal (1937) 24 A.I.R. All. 634 a suit had been instituted on 2nd January 1935, i.e. before the Act came into force. On 13th February 1935 the suit was decreed ex parte, but on 12th September 1935 the ex parte decree was set aside, and the suit was restored to its original number. It was held by a Bench of this Court that the intention of the Legislature in enacting Section 7 of the Act was that no Court should have jurisdiction to entertain a suit when it is filed or to try it unless the conditions mentioned in that section are fulfilled. It is certainly possible to envisage a case in which the provisions of Section 7 might operate hardly upon the plaintiff, but in the present case practically no proceedings had been taken up to the time when the objection was raised and it does not appear that the plaintiff will suffer any particular hardship. Act No. 27 of 1934 was enacted by the Legislature for the advantage and relief of agriculturists and the Courts should keep this fact in view when they have to interpret the provisions of any particular section which may have been drafted in ambiguous language. In any event in the present case there are no grounds for interfering in revision. This application is dismissed with costs.