The Madras High Court has held that one Division Bench cannot disagree with the reasoning of another coordinate Bench and take a fresh view on an issue already settled by it [D Paramasivam v. P Arunachalam and another]..A Bench of Justices GR Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan said that an earlier judgment by a Bench of equal strength remains binding unless it is overruled by a larger Bench or reversed by the Supreme Court.“It is not open to one Division Bench to hold that they do not agree with the reasoning of another Division Bench and will take a fresh look at the matter or adopt a different view,” the Court said..The observations came after the Registry listed a regular first appeal “for admission." The Court found that there was a conflict of views between two Division Benches on how such matters should be listed. The Bench noted that in PR Saravanan v. Dhanalakshmi, it had held that the Registry should issue notice after an appeal is presented and registered. Such an appeal should be listed under Order XLI Rule 11 (admission hearing) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) only if the Court specifically directs it.However, another Division Bench in Chennai Port Authority v. J Chandrasekaran subsequently directed that every appeal should be listed for admission before the appropriate court. That decision relied on an amendment proposed and approved by the High Court’s Rules Committee..Expressing disagreement with the later ruling, the Bench said,“We have the greatest of respects to the author of the judgment. We are alive to the fact that his judicial experience is more than our judicial experience combined. Yet, even Homer nods (meaning, no matter how skilled, knowledgeable, or perfect someone is, they are still capable of making mistakes).”The Court added that the Rules Committee only performs an advisory role. Its proposed amendments must be approved by the Full Court and sanctioned by the State government under Section 126 of the CPC. The amendment acquires legal force only after it is notified in the Official Gazette under Section 127..Therefore, the mere proposal and approval of an amendment by the Rules Committee could not bring it into force, the Court held.The Registry was consequently directed to follow the ruling in PR Saravanan while listing first appeals in future..Advocate S Vinoth Kumar, instructed by Advocate GC Nelson Britto, represented the appellant..[Read Judgment]
