Order XV, Rule 5 of the CPC, introduced by the U. P. Act No. 57 of 1976, was not inconsistent with the Central Act No. 104 of 1976 and, therefore, was not repealed.

( 1 ) (FOR himself and on behalf of A. N. Varma, J.) :- One of the questions involved in this revision is as to whether a defence of a tenant can be struck off for non-compliance of Rule 5 of Order XV as added by the U. P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act, 1976, (U. P. Act No. 57 of 1976) hereinafter REFERRED TO as the U. P. Act ). Hon. B. N. Sapru, J. by his order dated 29th April, 1987 when the revision came up for hearing before him, directed that the papers of the case be laid before Honble the Chief justice to constitute a larger Bench to consider the following questions : -1. Whether in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the Case of Ganpat Giri v. II Addl. District Judge, AIR 1986 SC 589 the provisions of Order XV, Rule 5 of the C. P. C. stood repealed by virtue of the provisions of Section 97 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act No. 104 of 1976) hereinafter REFERRED TO as the Central Act?

( 2 ) WHETHER the Central Amendments having come into force w. e. f. 1-2-1977 repealed the provisions of Order XV, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure introduced by U. P. Act No. 57 of 1976? reported in (1987) 2 All Rent Cas 181. 2. In Smt. Chandra Rani v. Vikram Singh, (1979) 5 All LR 56 : (1979 All LJ 401) a Full Bench of this Court had already taken a view that Order XV, Rule 5 as added by the U. P. Act was valid and did not stand repealed by virtue of the Central Act. Since the matter has already been decided by a Full Bench of this Court, in effect, the question which was referred by Honble B. N. Sapru, J. amounted to reconsideration of the decision in the case of Smt. Chandra Rani, (1979 All LJ 401) (FB) (supra) in view of certain observations made by Honble Supreme Court in Ganpat Giris case, (AIR 1986 SC 589) REFERRED TO above The Honble Chief Justice has directed that the papers of this case be laid before us to consider as to whether the Full Bench decision in the case of Chandra Rani (supra) requires reconsideration or not. 2a. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

( 3 ) IN Ganpat Giris case (supra), the question which has been considered by Honble Supreme Court was as to whether the amendment made in Order XXI, Rule 72 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 122 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter REFERRED TO as the Code) which was in force in the State of Uttar Pradesh prior to the commencement of the Central Act was inconsistent or not with the provisions of the Central Act. The Honble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that Order XXI, Rule 72 of the Code which was in force in the State of Uttar Pradesh prior to the Central Act, was directly inconsistent with the provisions of the Central Act and as such, it was held by the Honble Supreme Court that the amended Order XXI, Rule 72 of the Code which was in force in the State of Uttar Pradesh prior to February 1, 1977, did not continue after 1st February, 1977.

( 4 ) WHILE giving the above decision, certain observations were made by the Honble Supreme Court. In this connection, paragraphs 4 and 11 have been relied upon while making the reference. Paragraphs 4 and 11 are quoted below :-"para 4. There are three sub-sections in S. 97 of the Amending Act. A reading of S. 97 of the Amending Act shows that it deals with the effect of the Amending Act on the entire Code both the main part of the Code consisting of sections and the First Sch. to the Code which contains Orders and Rules. S. 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 consistent with the provisions of the Code as amended by the Amending Act stands repealed. It means that any local amendment of the Code which is inconsistent with the Code as amended by the Amending Act would cease to be o