https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171804 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. en-us Fri, 29 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Aug 2015 12:57:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171804 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 29 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171804