Letters Patent review procedure prevails when a High Court review Bench differs, requiring reference to a third Judge.

A review petition arising from a Division Bench judgment of a High Court acting under Article 226 must follow the special procedure in Clause 36 of the Letters Patent when the review Bench is divided. A difference of opinion cannot be resolved by dismissing the review under Order XLVII Rule 6 CPC, because review of an original jurisdiction judgment takes colour from the original jurisdiction and is not an independent proceeding. The saving provisions in Section 4(1), Section 129 and the relevant High Court Rules preserve the Letters Patent procedure. The review was therefore to be referred to a third Judge, with the connected challenge kept pending.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a review petition arising out of a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the High Court in exercise of original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when heard by two Judges who differ in opinion, must be referred to a third Judge under Clause 36 of the Letters Patent or dismissed under Order XLVII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (ii) Whether the connected proceedings and the review matter were to be remanded and kept pending rather than finally concluded in the appellant's appeal.

Issue (i): Whether a review petition arising out of a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the High Court in exercise of original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when heard by two Judges who differ in opinion, must be referred to a third Judge under Clause 36 of the Letters Patent or dismissed under Order XLVII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Review proceedings against a judgment delivered in the exercise of original jurisdiction take colour from the jurisdiction in which the original decision was rendered. A review is not a fresh and independent jurisdiction but a reconsideration of the same decision within the limits of review power. Clause 36 of the Letters Patent therefore governed the situation where the review Bench differed, and the special charter procedure could not be cut down by Order XLVII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court further held that the relevant High Court Rules and Section 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 did not displace the Letters Patent procedure, since the saving provisions of Section 4(1) and Section 129 preserved the special charter procedure.

Conclusion: The review petition could not be dismissed on the ground of difference of opinion between the two Judges and had to be referred for decision by a third Judge in accordance with Clause 36 of the Letters Patent.

Issue (ii): Whether the connected proceedings and the review matter were to be remanded and kept pending rather than finally concluded in the appellant's appeal.

Analysis: Once the procedural error was found, the impugned order dismissing the review petition could not stand. The review proceedings were restored to the High Court for fresh decision by the procedure contemplated in Clause 36 of the Letters Patent. The connected challenge to the main judgment was delinked and kept awaiting the result of the remanded review, while the appellant was directed to make the agreed deposit without prejudice to its rights.

Conclusion: The impugned dismissal was set aside, the review matter was remanded to the High Court, and the connected challenge was left pending.

Final Conclusion: The appellant succeeded on the procedural controversy, obtaining restoration of the review proceedings for adjudication by the High Court in accordance with the Letters Patent, while the merits of the underlying dispute were left open.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a Division Bench of a High Court hearing review of its own judgment rendered in original jurisdiction differs in opinion, the special procedure in the Letters Patent prevails and the matter must be resolved under that charter rather than by dismissal under the Code of Civil Procedure.

---