Gopalan Nambiyar, J.
1. Wesee 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 I. A. 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 Section 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 Section 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. Section 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-section (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 Ker LT 659 at p. 695 para 67 - (AIR 1971 Ker 98) 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 Article 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 Section 125 was pronounced to be unconstitutional. Since then the Land Reforms Act has been included in the 9th Schedule and is protected by Article 31B of the Constitution; with the result that -- 'to use the language of Article 31B --- the Act shall not be deemed to be void, or over to have become void. And as that part of Clause (7) of Section 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 Article 14, there is no force in the contention of Counsel for tine petitioner that a clause declared beyond the 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 Section 125 (7) k concerned, the tame 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.