Divided Bench references must be decided by majority view, and the third Judge is confined to the referred point alone.

Clause 26 of the Letters Patent limits a third Judge in a divided Bench reference to the specific point or points of disagreement; the referee has no jurisdiction to decide the entire case, and any finding beyond the referred issue is to be ignored. After the third Judge's opinion is returned, the matter must be disposed of by a Division Bench in conformity with the majority opinion of all Judges who heard the case. That final formal disposal need not be by the identical original Bench; another competent Division Bench may pronounce the decision. The operative requirement is that the final order gives effect to the majority view.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, after a reference to a third Judge under Rule 11 of Chapter I of the High Court Rules and Clause 26 of the Letters Patent, a different Division Bench can decide the matter according to the majority opinion of the original Bench and the referee Judge; (ii) Whether the third Judge can decide the whole case or is confined to the point or points of difference, and whether the matter must thereafter be placed before the same Division Bench.

Issue (i): Whether, after a reference to a third Judge under Rule 11 of Chapter I of the High Court Rules and Clause 26 of the Letters Patent, a different Division Bench can decide the matter according to the majority opinion of the original Bench and the referee Judge.

Analysis: Rule 11 of Chapter I of the High Court Rules provides the machinery for placing a divided matter before the Chief Justice for nomination of another Judge, while Clause 26 of the Letters Patent governs the decision-making process after the third Judge has expressed an opinion. The clause requires the point to be decided according to the opinion of the majority of Judges who have heard the case, including those who first heard it. The provision does not require that the final formal decision must be pronounced only by the identical Bench that originally heard the matter. The essential requirement is that the final Bench must give effect to the majority opinion.

Conclusion: Yes. A different Division Bench may render the decision in accordance with the majority opinion of the referring Judges and the referee Judge.

Issue (ii): Whether the third Judge can decide the whole case or is confined to the point or points of difference, and whether the matter must thereafter be placed before the same Division Bench.

Analysis: Clause 26 confines the third Judge to the specific point on which the original Division Bench differed. The third Judge is to express an opinion on that point and not to decide issues on which there was no difference, nor the case as a whole. Any part of the referee Judge's order extending beyond the referred point is without jurisdiction and must be ignored. After the opinion is returned, the case must go back to a Division Bench for formal decision according to the majority opinion. There is no legal requirement that this must be the same Bench, although it is preferable as a matter of propriety.

Conclusion: The third Judge is confined to the referred point or points of difference and cannot finally decide the whole case. The matter need not be placed before the same Division Bench, and another competent Division Bench may dispose of it according to the majority opinion.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by holding that the referee Judge has only a limited advisory role on the referred point, while the final decision must be made by a Division Bench in conformity with the majority opinion; a different Division Bench may perform that formal final disposal if necessary.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Clause 26 of the Letters Patent, a third Judge in a divided Bench reference has jurisdiction only to express an opinion on the specific point of difference, and the final decision must be formally rendered by a Division Bench according to the majority opinion of all Judges who heard the case.

---