S. RAJENDRA BABU, J. ( 1 ) 1. This revision petition arises out of miscellaneous proceedings filed by the respondents under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The contention raised before the trial Court was that the Institution in respect of which reliefs under Section 92 c. P. C. were sought for being a Muzrai institution, and the allegations in the proposed plaint being the matters falling within the scope of Sections 26 and 27 of the Karnataka Religious and Charitable institutions Act, 1927 ('act' for short), in view of Sections 40 and 40a of the Act the trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. This objection was overruled and against that order this revision petition is filed. ( 2 ) IT is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the trial court gave a categorical finding that the institution was a Muzrai Institution and was covered by Ss. 26 and 27 of the Act. However it held that remedies both under the Act as well as Section 92 C. P. C. were available and this finding of the trial court did not take note of the fact that Section 40 was a bar to the Institution of proceedings or suits except in the manner allowed in the act. It was further submitted that the manner in which a proceeding in a Civil court could be instituted was as provided under Sections 21 and 40a of the Act. Therefore, it was contended that the trial court was entirely wrong and the order needs revision. ( 3 ) IN answer, learned counsel for the respondents, contended that Section 40 or 40a of the Act is not a bar. Under Section 92 of the Code it is certainly permissible to file a suit even without invoking Sections 26 or 27 of the Act and therefore the suit was maintainable. It was also submitted that if for any reasons this court were come to the conclusion that such a proceeding was not permissible, Sections 40 and 40a of the Act come in direct conflict with the provisions of section 92 C. P. C. and therefore in view of art. 254 of the Constitution Central Act prevails over the State Act. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon the two decisions of this Court, one reported in the case of Subbiah and Two Others Vs. 254 of the Constitution Central Act prevails over the State Act. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon the two decisions of this Court, one reported in the case of Subbiah and Two Others Vs. Venkatagiryappa 1940 (18) Mys. L. J. 549_ and the other is Gurubasavaiah Vs. Katikere linge Gowda, 1961 Mys. S. L. J. 708 ( 4 ) IT is clear from a perusal of the order of the trial court that it held that the institution in respect of which these proceedings were instituted was a Muzrai institution and it is certainly permissible under the Act to invoke the provisions of sections 26 and 27 of the Act. However, it was permissible for the petitioners before the court to have invoked the court's jurisdiction under Section 92 C. P. C. In as much as, there is no dispute in this case that the Act was attracted to the case and the institution in respect of which reliefs were sought for is a Muzrai Institution Sections 26 and 27 of the Act are attracted, but the only thing that requires consideration is the scope of Ss. 40 and 40-A of the Act. In fact this very questions arose and fell for consideration before this court in Subbiah's case and that aspect of the matter was dealt with by this court in the following manner;". . . ON the facts of the present case, it is therefore clear that the Muzrai Officer has power to take action under Section 17 in this matter. The jurisdiction of the civil Courts is limited by the Act to the extent provided in Sections 21 and 40a. After the Muzrai Officer passes an order under Section 18 in respect of the alleged mismanagement of the temple and its properties, the person aggrieved by the order may file a suit in the Civil court under Section 21. Under Section 40-A, the aggrieved parties may bring a suit under Section 92 Civil Procedure code, even though it is a matter in which the Muzrai Officer has power to take action. . . . "a careful reading of this observation will make it clear that it is only after exhausting the remedy under the Act that the person could file a suit under Section 40a of the act. . . . "a careful reading of this observation will make it clear that it is only after exhausting the remedy under the Act that the person could file a suit under Section 40a of the act. What Section 40 of the Act says is that in all matters in which a Muzrai Officer, the muzrai Commissioner or the Government, has power to pass any order or to take any action under this Act, Civil Courts shall exercise jurisdiction only to the extent allowed by the regulation. Therefore it is obvious no suit or other proceedings can be filed except in the manner as provided under section 21 or 40a of the Act in matters in respect of which the officers under the Act or Government could take action. 4. The decision was sought to be distinguished by the learned counsel for the respondent on the ground that it was only an ordinary suit that is barred and not suit under section 92 C. P. C. That is not the effect of the decision at all in the light of the observation referred to by me. Therefore there is no substance in this contention of the learned counsel for the respondent. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel relied upon the decision of this Court reported in gurubasavaiah's case and sought to contend that in cases where it is not covered by section 92 C. P. C. alone that a bar under section 40a of the Act was attracted and not in other cases. But that is not the effect of the judgment at all. Moreover, that judgment was concerned with a Institution other than, Muzrai Institution, whatever observation that had been made in that case will have no application to this case at all. ( 6 ) IT is necessary to deal with the other contention raised by the petitioners regarding the inconsistency between the state Legislature and the Central Legislature in the light of Art. 254 of the Constitution. ( 6 ) IT is necessary to deal with the other contention raised by the petitioners regarding the inconsistency between the state Legislature and the Central Legislature in the light of Art. 254 of the Constitution. It is settled law that when legislations are made either by the legislature of the Staie or the Union, in matters covered by concurrent List if any repugnancy arises it is the Central enactment that will prevail; but in cases not occupied by either the central or State or if the two legislations operate in two different fields altogether, the question of repugnancy does not arise at all as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. HOECHST PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. Vs. STATE of BIHAR. ( AIR 1983 SC 1019 ) therefore, I do not find any substance in that contention either. ( 7 ) IN this view of the matter, I think the appropriate course to adopt is to set aside the order under revision and dismiss the application filed under Section 92 C. P. C. Petition is allowed accordingly. --- *** --- .