JUDGMENT The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MOOTHAM, C.J. - Eighteen applications on revision were made to the Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, under section 10 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. Instead of finally disposing of these applications the Judge (Revisions) has made a consolidated reference to this Court and has asked for the decision by it of two questions of law. The question is whether such a reference is competent. Section 11 of the Act, as in force at the material time, made provision for the reference to this Court by the Revising Authority of a question of law arising out of an order made by the Judge (Appeals) under sub-section (3) of section 9 or by the Judge (Revisions) under sub-section (1) of section 10; and it is common ground that the application now before us is not an application under section 11. The Learned Standing Counsel contends however that the application can be entertained by this Court under section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with section 141 of the Code which provides that "the procedure provided in this Code in regard to suits shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any Court of civil jurisdiction." There are two objections to this argument. In the first place the power conferred on a Court by section 113 of the Code to state a case and refer it to the High Court is expressly made subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed. These are to be found stated in Order 46, rule 1, which makes it clear that a reference can be made to the High Court only in a suit or an appeal in a suit. Secondly, section 141 extends only the procedure provided in the Code to the proceedings specified in that section; it does not confer any substantive rights not given elsewhere by the Code and accordingly it does not authorise a Court to invoke the jurisdiction of another Court unless such power be expressly conferred by statute : Damodara Menon v. Kittappa Menon (I.L.R. 36 Mad. 16). For these reasons we are of opinion that the reference made by the Judge (Revisions) is incompetent and we decline to answer the reference made to us. 16). For these reasons we are of opinion that the reference made by the Judge (Revisions) is incompetent and we decline to answer the reference made to us. In the view we have taken it is unnecessary for us to determine whether the Judge (Revisions) is a Court within the meaning of section 141 of the Code, and on that question we express no opinion. The references are rejected. The respondents are entitled to their costs, which we assess at one hundred rupees in each case. References rejected.