Reference procedure for a split Division Bench requires a precise point of difference before a third Judge can hear it.

Under Rule 10 of Chapter 4F(b) of Part II of the Delhi High Court Rules and clause 26 of the Letters Patent, a Division Bench that is equally divided must frame the precise point of difference and refer that point only to another Judge. A reference that merely sends the papers to the Chief Justice for assignment of a third Judge, without identifying the specific issue in dispute, does not conform to the prescribed procedure. The reference could not be expanded into a hearing on the entire case, and no finding on the merits could be returned.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reference made by the Division Bench conformed to clause 26 of the Letters Patent as applicable to the Delhi High Court, and whether the matter could be heard by the third Judge on the whole case instead of only the specific point of difference.

Analysis: Under Rule 10 of Chapter 4F(b) of Part II of the Delhi High Court Rules and clause 26 of the Letters Patent, when two Judges of a Division Bench are equally divided, they must state the precise point upon which they differ and the case must then be heard on that point only by one or more other Judges. The reference in this case merely directed that the papers be placed before the Chief Justice for designation of a third Judge to hear the matter, without clearly identifying the point of difference. In the absence of a properly formulated reference, it was not possible to answer the reference or expand it into a hearing on the entire case.

Conclusion: The reference was held to be not in conformity with the governing procedure, and no finding was returned on the merits.

---