Laxminarayan Narayan Nigam and Another vs Chhotu Kalu Khangar

B.K. Chaturvedi, J.—The only point pressed in this revision by Mr. Pande is about the vires of Section 4 of the Madhya Bharat Mali and Inam Tenants and Sub-tenants Protection Act (No. 32 of 1954) which lays Gown that

All suits, proceedings in execution of decrees or orders and other proceedings for the eviction of Inam land tenants, sub-tenants or ordinary tenants from Inam lands, etc., which are Pending in the Court at the commencement of this Act or which may be instituted after such commencement, shall stand stayed subject to the provisions contained in the following Sub-sections etc.

Mr. Pande contends that this provision is repugnant to the Court''s power of stay of suits u/s 10, 151 or even u/s 94, Code of Civil Procedure. He draws my attention to item No. 13 and item No. 46 of List III of VIIIth Schedule of the Constitution of India. Item No. 13 relates to-

Code of Civil Procedure, including all matters includeded in the CPC at the commencement of this Constitution, limitation and arbitration.

Item No. 48 relates to-

Jurisdiction and powers of all Courts, except the Supreme Court with respect to any of the matters in this list.

The leaned counsel contends that as Section 4 of the said Act is repugnant to the CPC which is made by Parliament, and which alone Parliament is competent to enact, that under Article 254 of the Constitution, the law made by Parliament shall prevail and the law made by the Madhya Bharat Legislature shall, to the extent of repugnancy, be void. The learned Counsel also urges that inaramuch as the Madhya Bharat State''s Act was not reserved for the assent of the President, and has net received his assent, Section 4 of the Act should be declared void.

My attention is invited to Rule 13(2), Part I, Chap. I of the rules regarding jurisdiction of a Single Judge and of Benches of the High Court which lays down that a Judge sitting alone shall refer the case to a Division Bench when it involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India. The question therefore, before me at this stage is: whether the question, which has been raised by Mr. Pande in this revision, can be said to involve a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution?

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 P. C, see - AIR 1947 72 (Privy Council) , 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 CPC 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 u/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. Section 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 filed but the proceedings in the suit will remain suspended or stayed till a certain date, that is till 15-12-1956.

In other words the suits, as the learned Advocate General condends will remain merely under suspended animation, and thus, case cannot be said to be repugnant to any provision of CPC therefore it seems that Section 4 of the Act far from being repugnant to CPC is something which has been plainly permitted by Section 4, CPC itself. There can, thus,exist no repunancy here. I, therefore, find that no substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution is involved here.

The revision will, therefore, be dismissed, with costs.