Judgment :- 1. We see no ground to interfere with the judgment of the lower appellate court, refusing the revision petitioner's application for issue of an interim injunction. The suit filed by him, O. S.4 of 1970 was one for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein, from trespassing on the property. The Respondents claimed tenancy rights. The Revision-petitioner made an earlier application LA. 17 of 1970 for an interim injunction. As the question of tenancy was pleaded by the Respondents, the I. A. was referred to the Land Tribunal for decision in accordance with the provisions of S.125, Clause (3) of the Land Reforms Act. The matter is still pending before the Land Tribunal. While so, the present petitioner made another application, out of which this revision arises, for an interim injunction against the Respondents. The trial court granted the injunction. But on appeal, the lower appellate court allowed the appeal and vacated the interim injunction. 2. Two reasons have been given by the lower appellate court. First, that a second application for injunction was not maintainable during the pendency of the first, and second, that sub-section (7) of S.125 of the Land Reforms Act was a bar to the granting of an interim injunction. 3. We are not quite satisfied with the first of the reasons given by the lower appellate court. But it is unnecessary to go into this, as the order can be sustained on the second ground. S.125, Clause (7) of the Land Reforms Act reads: 125 (7): No Civil Court shall have power to grant injunction in any suit or other proceeding referred to in sub-s. (3) restraining any person from entering into or occupying or cultivating any land or kudikidappu or to appoint a receiver for any property in respect of which a question referred to in that sub-section has arisen, till such question is decided by the Land Tribunal, and any such injunction granted or appointment made before the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969, or before such question has arisen, shall stand cancelled." In Narayanan Nair's case (1970 KLT. 659 at 695 para 67) a Full Bench of this Court considered the validity of the above clause. 659 at 695 para 67) a Full Bench of this Court considered the validity of the above clause. It was pointed out that while the earlier part of it, prohibiting the court from granting injunction or appointing a Receiver, cannot be saved as a measure of agrarian reform and is bad for violation of Art.14 of the Constitution, the latter part of it, which directs that any injunction granted or appointment of a Receiver made, shall stand vacated or cancelled, amounts to usurpation of judicial power. On these grounds Clause (7) of S.125 was pronounced to be unconstitutional. Since then, the Land Reforms Act has been included in the 9th Schedule and is protected by Art.31B of the Constitution; with the result that,-to use the language of Art.31-B-the Act shall not be deemed to be void, or ever to have become void. And, as that part of Clause (7) of S.125 with which we, are concerned in this case, was declared invalid by the Full Bench on the ground that it is not a measure of agrarian reform and is violative of Art.14, there is no force in the contention of Counsel for the petitioner that a clause declared beyond he legislative competence of the State Legislature cannot be revived by its inclusion in the 9th Schedule. We are satisfied that as far as the earlier part of S 125(7) is concerned, the same was not pronounced unconstitutional for want of legislative competence. Being so, the decision of the lower appellate court is correct. We dismiss this revision petition, but in the circumstances without costs.