(1.) The preliminary question for consideration is whether a petition for review of a judgment passed by a Bench of two Judges can be heard by one of them or by a Division Bench including one of them, if the other Judge is still attached to the Court but is absent for a period less than six months next after the petition. One of us and another learned Judge disposed of the appeal; and that other Judge is now on leave for a period less than six months. The above petition has been filed for reviewing the said Division Bench decision; and the question we have to consider is whether, under R.5 of O.47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Bench or one of us who was a party to the Division Bench can hear the petition.
(2.) R.5 of O.47 reads:
(3.) Three possibilities are contemplated by this provision: (1) where one Judge passes a decree or makes an order and the said decree or order is sought to be reviewed, that Judge must hear the petition for review, if he is attached to the Court at the time when the petition is presented and is not precluded by absence or other cause for a period of six months next after the petition from considering the decree or order; (2) when more than one Judge pass the decree or make the order and if all of them continue attached to the Court and are not precluded by absence or other cause for a period of six months from considering the decree or order, then all the Judges must bear the petition; and (3) if more than one Judge pass the decree or make the order and if any of them is still attached to the Court and is not precluded by absence or otherwise for a period of six months from considering the decree or order, then he must hear the petition for review in -- other words, if all the Judges are not available but only one of them is available, then that one Judge shall hear the review petition even if the decree was passed or order was made by more Judges than one. And no other Judge or Judges of the Court shall hear the petition.