LAXMINARAIN Vs. CHHOTU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only point pressed in this revision by Mr. Pande is about the vires of S. 4 of the Madhya Bharat Muafi and Inam Tenants and Sub -tenants Protection Act (No. 32 of 1954) which lays down that "all suits, proceedings in execution of decrees or orders and other proceedings for the (sic) of Inam land tenants, sub -tenants or ordinary tenants from Inam (sic) which are pending in the Court at the commencement of this (sic) be instituted after such commencement, shall stand stayed (sic)Mens contained in the following sub -sections (sic) this provision is repugnant to the Court's powered or even under S. 94 C.P.C. He draws my attention to item No. 13 and item No. 46 of list III of VII Schedule of the Constitution of India. Item No. 13 relates to: - -

(2.) A notice was given to the learned Advocate General who, with his usual ability contended that the question does not involve a substantial point of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution, and, therefore, need not be referred to a Division Bench. The learned Advocate General points out that the State Legislature has power under Item No. 18, list II for legislating about "land, that is to say, rights in or over land, land tenures, including the relation of landlord and tenant, and the collection of rents" etc., and also under Item No. 65 for legislating about "jurisdiction and powers of all Courts, except the Supreme Court, with respect to any of the matters, in this list". This entry read with entry No. 18 gives the State Legislature exclusive power to create and determine powers and jurisdiction of Courts in respect of land, without the necessity of invoking the concurrent power relating to Civil Procedure Code, (see, A.I.R. 147 PC 72 -Meghra vs. Allah Pakhia). In order to protect Inam tenants, the State Legislature can, therefore, lay down that suits or other proceedings against the said tenants shall be stayed or shall stand stayed. In my opinion, the contention of the learned Advocate General is well -founded. The provisions regarding the stay of suits in the Civil Procedure Code were never intended to be exhaustive or to lay down the whole of the law on the subject with which they deal. The Code clearly states under S. 4 that in the absence of any specific provision to the contrary, nothing in the Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect any special or local law in force at the date of the commencement of the Code, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred or any special form of procedure prescribed by or under any other law for the time being in force. S. 4 of the Madhya Bharat Muafi and Inam Tenants and Sub -tenants Protection Act is a law relating to special jurisdiction about Inam tenants, and this section only says that the Court will remain seized of the suits Sled but the proceedings in the suit will remain suspended or stayed till a certain date, that is till 15th December, 1956. In other words, the suits, as the learned Advocate General contends will remain merely under suspended animation, and, thus, cannot be said to be repugnant to any provision of the Civil Procedure Code. Therefore it seems that S. 4 of the Act far from being repugnant to the Civil Procedure Code, is something which has been plainly permitted by S. 4 C.P.C., itself. There can, thus, exist no repugnancy here, I, therefore, find that no substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution is involved here.