9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 581X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Civil Court u/s 37 of the Act. The first and the foremost submission put forward by learned counsel for the appellant for consideration of this Court is that in an earlier Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court reported in AIR 1979 Patna 250, Ramkrit Singh and Others versus State of Bihar and Ors, the same questions have been considered and decided inter alia the question of the validity of Section 15 and the impact of Sec. 4(b), Sec. 4(c) and Section 37 of the Act. The vires of Section 15 of the Act has been upheld in the case of Ramkrit Singh (supra) by the Full Bench, including the bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of matters covered by notification u/s 3 read with Section 4(b) and 4(c) of the Act. The provision contained under Section 4 (b) provides that after a Notification is published under Section 3(1) of the Act, no suit or other legal proceeding falling in the area notified, shall be entertained by any Court and Section 4(c) provides that every proceeding for correction of records and for declaration of rights or interest in any land or any other right, pending before any other Court or authority shall stand abated. Section 15 of the Act provides t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the civil court is not barred in terms of Section 4(b) or Section 37 of the Act, the civil court cannot pass a decree only in terms of the decision of the consolidation authorities after revival of the suit. The said observations, therefore, are not binding upon this court. In such a situation the civil court will have jurisdiction to decide suits relating to such matter in respect whereof its jurisdiction is not barred either in terms of section 4(b) or Section 37 of the said Act The reasons which has been indicated to hold that the decision in the case of Ramkrit Singh (supra) was per incuriam is that it did not consider the question as to whether the consolidation authorities are courts of limited jurisdiction or not. Hence, an observation was made that civil court while disposing of suits after revival of their jurisdiction at the end of consolidation proceedings would merely pass a decree in terms of decision of the consolidation authority. It is observed that cases where jurisdiction of civil court is not barred in terms of Section 4(b) or Section 37 of the Act, the civil court cannot pass a decree only in terms of decision of the consolidation authorities after re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssue or where a court omits to consider any statute while deciding that issue. We therefore find that the rule of per incuriam cannot be invoked in the present case. Moreover a case cannot be referred to a larger Bench on mere asking of a party. A decision by two judges, unless it is demonstrated that the said decision by any subsequent change in law or decision ceases to laying down a correct law According to the above decision, a decision of the coordinate Bench may be said to be ceased to be good law only if it is shown that it is due to any subsequent change in law. In State of U.P. and Another Vs. Synthetics and chemicals Ltd. Anr. 1991 (4) S.C.C. 139 , this court observed: Incuria literally means carelessness . In practice per incuriam appears to mean per ignoratium. English Courts have developed this principle in relaxation of the rule of stare decisis. The quotable in law is avoided and ignored if it is rendered, in ignoratium of a statute or other binding authority . (Young versus Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd.) . Same has been accepted, approved and adopted by this Court while interpreting Article 141 of the Constitution which embodies the doctrine of pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jagdish 2001 (2) S.C.C. it has been observed as follows: As the learned Single Judge was not in agreement with the view expressed in Devilal Case it would have been proper, to maintain judicial discipline, to refer the matter to a larger Bench rather than to take a different view. We note it with regret and distress that the said course was not followed. It is well-settled that if a Bench of coordinate jurisdiction whether on the basis of different arguments or otherwise, on a question of law, it is appropriate that the matter be referred to a larger Bench for resolution of the issue rather than to leave two conflicting judgments to operate, creating confusion. It is not proper to sacrifice certainty of law. Judicial decorum, no less than legal propriety forms the basis of judicial procedure and it must be respected at all costs . In Pradip Chandra Parija and others Vs. Pramod Chandra Patnaik and others 2002 (1) S.C.C. 1, it has been held that where a Bench consisting of two Judges does not agree with the Judgment rendered by a Bench of three Judges, the only appropriate course available is to place the matter before another Bench of three Judge and in case three ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
