Division Bench reference under Kerala High Court Act requires a signed judicial order, brief reasons, and is not appealable.

Section 3 of the Kerala High Court Act treats the phrase "adjourn it for being heard and determined by a Bench of two Judges" as a reference to a Division Bench, not a mere adjournment simpliciter. An order under that proviso is a judicial order because it transfers the matter from the single Judge's forum, so it should be in writing, signed by the Judge, and ordinarily disclose brief reasons; it is nonetheless procedural and not appealable under Section 5. Section 4 permits reference to a Full Bench only sparingly, where there is an unresolved conflict in Division Bench authority and no later Supreme Court ruling has settled the issue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the words "adjourn it for being heard and determined by a Bench of two Judges" in Section 3 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 are to be construed as a reference to the Division Bench or as a mere adjournment simpliciter; (ii) whether an order under Section 3 must be a written judicial order signed by the Judge and supported by brief reasons, and whether such an order is appealable under Section 5; (iii) whether Section 4 permits reference to a Full Bench only where there is a conflict of Division Bench decisions and no later decision of the Supreme Court resolving it.

Issue (i): Whether the words "adjourn it for being heard and determined by a Bench of two Judges" in Section 3 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 are to be construed as a reference to the Division Bench or as a mere adjournment simpliciter.

Analysis: The proviso in Section 3 was read in the setting of the Act as a whole and in contrast with Section 4, which uses the expression "refer" for Full Bench matters. The Court held that when a single Judge sends a matter to a larger forum of two Judges, the provision is not concerned with a routine adjournment to another date or another sitting. It is a transfer of the matter to a different forum for hearing and determination. The legislative context, the structure of the Act, and the distinction between the single Judge's powers and the Division Bench's powers showed that the word "adjourn" in this setting operates as a reference to the Division Bench.

Conclusion: The expression in Section 3 means a reference of the matter to a Bench of two Judges, not a mere adjournment simpliciter.

Issue (ii): Whether an order under Section 3 must be a written judicial order signed by the Judge and supported by brief reasons, and whether such an order is appealable under Section 5.

Analysis: The Court held that an order under the proviso to Section 3 is a judicial order because it is made in the exercise of judicial power and removes the matter from the single Judge's forum. As a judicial order, it should be in writing and signed by the Judge, and brief reasons should ordinarily be indicated so that the exceptional circumstances justifying the transfer are disclosed. The Court also held that the order does not determine rights inter partes and is procedural in nature; therefore, it is not an appealable order under Section 5. The absence or presence of reasons does not convert it into an order deciding rights on merits.

Conclusion: An order under Section 3 must be a written, signed judicial order and should briefly state reasons, but it is not appealable under Section 5.

Issue (iii): Whether Section 4 permits reference to a Full Bench only where there is a conflict of Division Bench decisions and no later decision of the Supreme Court resolving it.

Analysis: Section 4 was construed as enabling a Division Bench to refer a matter or question of law to a Full Bench sparingly. The Court held that the mere fact that both Judges think the matter involves a question of law is not enough by itself. A reference to a Full Bench is justified where there is a conflict of Division Bench decisions and no later Supreme Court decision resolving the conflict, directly or by implication. Where the conflict is resolved by a later Supreme Court pronouncement, the Division Bench must follow that binding position rather than refer the matter further.

Conclusion: Reference under Section 4 is warranted only in the limited situation of unresolved conflict of Division Bench authority.

Final Conclusion: The legal position under the Kerala High Court Act was settled by treating Section 3 as a provision for transfer to a Division Bench by a signed judicial order with brief reasons, while holding that such an order is not appealable and that Full Bench reference under Section 4 is exceptional and conflict-based.

Ratio Decidendi: When a statute uses a proviso to move a matter from one judicial forum to a larger forum, the resulting order is a judicial order that must be formally made by the Judge, and a further reference to a still larger Bench is confined to exceptional cases of unresolved conflict in authority.

---