ORDER : The only point pressed in this revision by Mr. Pande is about the vires of S. 4 of the Madhya Bharat Mafi and Inam Tenants and Subtenants Protection Act (No. 32 of 1954) which lays down 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 Courts power of stay of suits under S. 10, 151 or even under S. 94, C. P. C. He draws my attention to item No. 13 and item No. 46 of List III of VIIth Schedule of the Constitution of India. Item No. 13 relates to - "Civil procedure, including all matters included in the Civil Procedure Code at the commencement of this Constitution, limitation and arbitration." Item No. 46 relates to - "Jurisdiction and powers of all Courts, except the Supreme Court with respect to any of the matters in this list." The learned counsel contends that as S. 4 of the said Act is repugnant to the Civil Procedure Code which is made by Parliament, and which alone Parliament is competent to enact, that under Art. 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 inasmuch as the Madhya Bharat States Act was not reserved for the assent of the President, and has not received his assent, S. 4 of the Act should be declared void. My attention is invited to R. 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. The question therefore, before me at this stage is: whether the question, which has been raised by Mr. Pande ill this revision, can be said to involve a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution? 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 P. C. see - Megh Raj v. Allah Rakhia, AIR 1947 PC 72 (A). 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 P. C. 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. 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 contends will remain merely under suspended animation, and, thus, (sic) cannot be said to be repugnant to any provision of Civil P. C. Therefore it seems that S. 4 of the Act far from being repugnant to Civil P. C., 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. 3. The revision will, therefore, be dismissed, with costs.