( 1 ) THIS petition is by the defendant in O. S. No. 47 of 1969 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge, Chitradurga. It is directed against an order made on 21-10-1970 in regard to issue No. 1, relating to the status of the defendant as an agriculturist within the meaning of the Mysore agriculturists Relief Act, 1928. The learned Civil Judge, refused to try that issue on the ground that the Act was no longer in force by virtue of the repealing provisions of the Mysore Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 1966, which came into force on 1-4-1969. ( 2 ) THE argument of Sri R. V. Vasant Kumar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is as follows. The latter Act of 1966 was held to be un-constitutional by a judgment of this Court prior to the date of the institution of the suit, which was 22-11-1969. It is, therefore, his submission that the earlier repealed Act stood revived as a consequence of the said judgment of this Court. I am unable to accede to this argument. ( 3 ) IN this connection, the learned Counsel relied strongly on a decision of the Supreme Court in Mulchand v. Rajkot Municipality, AIR. 1970 SC. 685. . In my opinion, this decision is not of much assistance to the petitioner. It was a case where under a pre-constitution ordinance the municipalities were permitted to levy octroi in accordance with the rules framed thereunder. Subsequently in the year 1953 a notification was issued by the government which in effect withdrew the rules relating to levy of octroi in regard to the Municipality concerned therein. In the meanwhile, the municipality had framed its own Bye-laws relating to levy of Octroi. The government in that same notification observed that the said Bye-laws shall thereafter be in force. It was contended therein that the Bye-laws framed by the Municipality were invalid on account of non-compliance with the procedure prescribed under the Act. Since the Bye-laws were invalid, it was the case of the Municipality, that the earlier rules under the pre-constitution ordinance would continue to be in force. In disposing of this contention, the Supreme Court held that the earlier withdrawal of the rules made by the Government was subject to the condition that the bye-laws framed by the Municipality were validly brought into force. In disposing of this contention, the Supreme Court held that the earlier withdrawal of the rules made by the Government was subject to the condition that the bye-laws framed by the Municipality were validly brought into force. It is therefore clear from this narration that the withdrawal of the earlier rules relating to octroi was a conditional one, depending on the validity coming into force of the Bye-laws framed by the Municipality. It is, therefore, clear that although the Bye-laws framed were found to be invalid, the earlier rules would continue to be valid. ( 4 ) IN the instant case, the position is not exactly similar. The 1928 act stood repealed to all intents and purposes subiect to the savings enacted in 1966 Act. No provision has been brought to my notice in the repealing provision of the latter statute of 1966 whereby it could be pointed out that a condition has been provided for to the effect that the repeal could be said to have been made expresslv subject to the validly bringing into operation of the Act of 1966. It is. therefore, clear that the legislative intendment was that 1928 Act should stand repealed. In this view of the matter the above decision of the Supreme Court cannot be called in aid by the petitioner. ( 5 ) IT is further the argument of Shri Vasantha Kumar, that in view of the fact that the 1966 Act was struck down by this Court, it would amount to a repeal of that statutp in a certain sense and therefore the vaccum should be deemed to be filled up bv the earlier Act. In elaboration it was Submittpd that when the repealing provisions of the latter statute of 1966 itself stood struck-down. the repeal provided for therein becomes non-existent. In this situation the Act of 1. 928 should be deemed not to have been repealed at all for all purposes. I am unable to accede to this proposition also. It may be mentioned, that the learned Counsel did not cite anv authority in support of this proposition. the repeal provided for therein becomes non-existent. In this situation the Act of 1. 928 should be deemed not to have been repealed at all for all purposes. I am unable to accede to this proposition also. It may be mentioned, that the learned Counsel did not cite anv authority in support of this proposition. The legal posttion in such a situation, as I understand it to be, is that if a repealing statute itself stood repealed for one reason or other, it would not ordinarily have the effect of reviving the statute which had earlier been repealed, unless the last of the repealing statutes itself provides for such a revival. ( 6 ) FOR the above reasons, the petition fails and is dismissed, but without costs. --- *** --- .