JUDGMENT B.N. Sapru, J. - One of the questions involved in this revision is as to whether the defence of a tenant can be struck down for non-compliance with Rule 5 of Order XV of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the C.P.C.) as added to the C.P.C. by the U.P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act, 1976 (U.P. Act 57 of 1976) (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the U.P. Act No. 57 of 1976'. 2. In the case of Smt. Chandra Rani v. Vikram Singh and others, 1979(5) ALR 56 : 1979 ARC 105 (FB), it has been held that the defence of a tenant can be struck down for such a non-compliance. 3. Mr. Justice M.N. Shukla, in the Full Bench judgment has observed that there is no direct conflict between the provisions of Order XV, Rule 5, C.P.C., as inserted by the U.P. Act No. 57 of 1976 and the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Central Act No. 104 of 1976), hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Central Act No. 104 of 1976'. I am quoting the relevant part of the judgment of Mr. Justice Shukla, which runs as follows :- "In my opinion none of the above tests is fulfilled in the present case. There is surely no direct conflict between the provisions of Order XV, Rule 5, as inserted by U.P. Act 37 of 1972 and the Central Act which does not contain Rule 5. Order VI, Rule 16 substituted by Central Act No. 184 of 1976 also contains a provision for striking out pleadings, Rule 5 of Order XV merely adds other cases in which the same power may be exercised. It, therefore, multiplies the situations for the exercise of that power and does not make any innovation which may be regarded as inconsistent with the Central Act. I am also inclined to agree with K.C. Agrawal, J. who after quoting extensively from the reports of the law commission came to the conclusion that the object of enacting Central Act No. 104 of 1976 was not to provide a exhaustive Code but it was a limited object namely, to "consider what amendments are needed to avoid delay and minimise cost in civil proceedings." In other words, the Union Parliament did not intend this legislation to be complete and exhaustive Code relating to the subject." 4. Mr. Justice Yashoda Nandan has also taken the view that Rule 5, as substituted in Order XV by the U.P. Act No. 57 of 1976 is not inconsistent with the Central Amendments and does not stand repealed. 5. Mr. Justice K.C. Agrawal had pointed out that Order XV, Rule 5, as introduced in the Uttar Pradesh, was not inconsistent with the Central Act No. 104 of 1976. The relevant part of the judgment runs as follows : "The question of inconsistency of Order XV, Rule 5, C.P.C., which the Central Act had come for decision before Hon'ble K.N. Goyal, J. in Civil Revision No. 511 of 1978, M/s. Indra Finance Corporation v. Prem Shanker Awasthi, (decided on 15-9-1978), Brother Goyal held that Order X, Rule 5, C.P.C., was not inconsistent with the view taken by him in this controversy. Section 97 (1) of the Central Act leaves the power of the State Legislature and the State High Courts to amend the Code of Civil Procedure intact. This section does not lay down that all the local amendments made by the State Government or the High Courts would stand repealed. It only provides that only those local amendments would stand nullified or repealed which were in consistent with the Principal Act, as amended by the Central Act. That apart even the power of High Court conferred by Section 122 of the C.P.C., has been left untouched. In this view of the matter, it is not possible to say that the Parliament intended to lay down an exhaustive code in respect of the subject matter replacing all provisions of State legislation made on the Code of Civil Procedure as well as High Court's amendments. As observed above, Section 97 (1) will apply only where the amendments were inconsistent and not those which were not inconsistant." 6. In the case of Ganpat Giri v. Addl. District Judge, effect of the amendments in Order XXII, Rule 72, C.P.C., were considered by the Allahabad High Court before the commencement of the Central Act No. 104 of 1976 on 1-2-1977. The question for consideration was as to whether the Allahabad Amendment stood repealed by virtue of the provisions of Section 97 (1) of the Central Act No. 104 of 1976. The question for consideration was as to whether the Allahabad Amendment stood repealed by virtue of the provisions of Section 97 (1) of the Central Act No. 104 of 1976. The High Court took the view that the case was governed by Rule 72, of Order XXI of the Code as it was in force in the State of Uttar Pradesh before the Amending Act came into force. The Supreme Court See 1986 (2) ARC 80 (SC) summed up the matter in the following words:- "The High Court however took the view that since the Amending Act had not made amendment of any kind in so far as Rule 72, of Order XXI, was concerned, the amendment made by the High Court of Allahabad to Rule 72 of Order XXI of the Code prior to the commencement of the Amending Act remained intact." 7. In Paragraph 5 of the Judgment, it was observed by the Supreme Court as follows : "5. There are three sub-sections in Section 97 of the Amending Act. A reading of Section 97 of the Amending Act shows that it deals with the affect of the Amending Act on the entire Code both the main part of the Code consisting of sections and the first, Schedule to the Code which contains Orders and Rules. Section 97 (1) of the Amending Act takes note of the several local amendments made by a State Legislature and by a High Court before the commencement of the Amending. Act and states that any such amendment shall except insofar as such amendment or provision is inconsistent with the provisions of the Code as amended by the Amending Act would cease to be operative on the commencement of the Amending Act i.e., on February 1, 1977. The repealing provision in Section 97 (1) is not confined in its operation to provisions of the Code including the Orders and Rules in the First Schedule which are actually amended by the Amending Act, object of Section 97 of the Amending Act appears to be that on or after February 1, 1977 throughout India wherever the Code was in force, there should be same procedural law in operation in all the civil courts subject of course to any future local amendment that may be made either by the State legislature or by the High Court, as the case may be, in accordance with law. Until such amendment is made the Code as amended by the Amending Act alone should govern the procedure in Civil Courts which are governed by the Code. We are emphasising this in view of the decision of the Allahabad High Court which is now under appeal before us." 8. Then again, in, Paragraph 13 of the judgment, the Supreme Court observed us under : "13. Now reveting to Section 97 (1) of the Amending Act, the High Court was in error in holding that because no amendment had been made to Rule 72 by the Amending Act. Section 97 (1) had no affect on the Rule as it was in force in the State of Uttar Pradesh before the commencement of the Amending Act. As observed earlier, the effect of Section 97 (1) is that all local amendments made to any of the provisions of the Code either by a State Legislature or by a High Court which were inconsistent with the Code as amended by the Amending Act, stood repealed irrespective of the fact whether the corresponding provision in the Code had been amended or modified by the Amending Act and that was subject only to what was found in sub-section (2) of Section 97. Sub-section (3) of Section 97 provides that save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), the provisions of the Code as amended by the Amending Act shall apply to every suit, proceeding, appeal or application pending at the commencement of the Amending Act or instituted or filed after such commencement, notwithstanding the fact that the right or cause of action in pursuance of which such suit, proceeding, appeal or application is instituted or filed had been acquired or had accrued before such commencement. Sub-section (3) of Section 97 sets at rest doubts, if any, by making the Code as amended by the Amending Act applicable to all proceedings referred to therein subject to subsection (2) of Section 97." 9. Sub-section (3) of Section 97 sets at rest doubts, if any, by making the Code as amended by the Amending Act applicable to all proceedings referred to therein subject to subsection (2) of Section 97." 9. Ultimately, the Supreme Court, in Paragraph 14, observed as follows : "The High Court was, therefore, in error in holding that the amended Rule 72 of Order XXI, which was in force in the State of Uttar Pradesh prior to February 1, 1977 continued to be in force after that date and that the court sale held in which the decree-holder had purchased the property without the express permission of the executing court was unassailable under sub-rule (3) of Rule 72." 10. For a perusal of this judgment, it follows that the effect of Section 97 (1) of the Central Act No. 104 of 1976 is that even though there is no inconsistency between the State Amendments and the Central Amendments, the provisions of the Central Act No. 104 of 1976 will prevail and the state amendments will stand repealed by virtue of Section 97 (1). 11. There is another aspect of the matter. In the case of Smt. Chandra Rani, (supra), a question for consideration was as to whether Central Act No. 104 of 1976 repealed the U.P. Act No. 57 of 1976 Mr. Justice K.C. Agrawal gave the following dates for appreciating the point ; Central Act No. 104 of 1976 U.P. Act No. 57 of 1976 Bill introduced on : 9-9-1976 5-11-1976 (i) Date of passing before 9-9-1976 before 30-12-1976 (ii) Date of assent by the President 9-9-1976 30-12-1976 (iii) Date of publication in Gazette 10-9-1976 31-12-1976 (iv) Date of enforcement 1-2-1977 1-1-1977 12. The learned Judge held that the President had given his assent to the Central Act No. 104 of 1976 earlier in point of time to the assent given to the U.P. Act No. 57 of 1976. The learned Judge, further held that the U.P. law is a subsequent law and it will prevail in the State as it was not repealed by virtue of Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India. 13. The learned Judge, further held that the U.P. law is a subsequent law and it will prevail in the State as it was not repealed by virtue of Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India. 13. One of the questions which arose before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Jupiter Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur and others v. State of U.P. and another, 1986 ALJ 710, was whether the U.P. Chit Funds Act No. 53 of 1975 stood repealed on the enactment of Chit Funds Act (Central Act No. 40 of 1982, which was a Central Act. No notification had been issued bringing into force the Central Act, but, nevertheless, it was contended 4 that, by virtue of Article 154(1) of the Constitution of India, the U.P. Act stood repealed. This Court held that the U.P. Chit Funds Act would continue to be in force until a notification was issued under Section 1(3) of the Chit Funds Act bringing it into force in the State of Uttar Pradesh. 14. The Court relied upon a decision of the Privy Council in the case of Attorney General for Ontario v. Attorney-General for the Dominion and the Distillers and Brawers' Association of Ontario, reported in 1896 AC 348 for coming to this conclusion. The Bench observed in Paragraphs 22 and 23 of the judgment as follows :- "22. As we read the Privy Council decision, we find that unless the Federal Legislation is actually enforced in a particular area, the law made by the Provincial Legislature will continue to operate. It is only when the Federal Legislation is enforced, the State Legislation will give was and ceased to be effective. 23. In this view of the matter since the Parliament Act has not been enforced by issuance of a notification under Section 1(3) of the Parliament Act, the U.P. Act continues to govern the field." 15. It is only when the Federal Legislation is enforced, the State Legislation will give was and ceased to be effective. 23. In this view of the matter since the Parliament Act has not been enforced by issuance of a notification under Section 1(3) of the Parliament Act, the U.P. Act continues to govern the field." 15. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ganpat Giri v. IInd Additional District Judge, 1986 (1) SCC 615 : AIR 1986 SC 589 : 1986 (2) ARC 80 SC ; 1986 SC FB RC 323 (SC), on the effect of Section 97 (1) of the Central Act No. 104 of 1976, and in view of the fact that I am of the opinion that the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Chandra Rani v. Vikram Singh, 1979 (5) ALR 56 : 1979 ARC 105 (FB), requires reconsideration, I think that the following questions arise in the case ;- 1. Whether in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case a of Ganpat Giri (supra), the provisions of Order XV, Rule 5 CPC, stood repealed by virtue of the provisions of Section 97 (1) of the Central Act No. 104 of 1976 ? 2. Whether the Central Amendments having come into force with effect from 1-2-1977 repealed the provisions of Order XV, Rule 5, CPC, introduce by the U.P. Act No. 57 of 1976 ? 16. Accordingly direct that the papers of the case be held before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for Constitution of a larger Bench to consider the aforesaid two questions. 17. Since the matter is of extreme urgency, I trust that the Hon'ble the Chief Justice will be able to constitute a larger Bench at the very earliest.