https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191356 Section 98(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was treated as the special rule governing civil appeals where a Division Bench is evenly divided and no referable point of law is stated. The commentary states that the Kerala High Court could not rely on the Madras Letters Patent or the Travancore-Cochin High Court Act to send the matter to a third Judge, because the procedure of the High Court and the powers of Judges were separately regulated and no saving provision displaced Section 98(2). It also notes that where readiness and willingness was a pure issue of fact sufficient to decide the appeals, interference under Article 136 was not warranted. en-us Mon, 20 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 31 Mar 2017 14:13:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191356 Section 98(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was treated as the special rule governing civil appeals where a Division Bench is evenly divided and no referable point of law is stated. The commentary states that the Kerala High Court could not rely on the Madras Letters Patent or the Travancore-Cochin High Court Act to send the matter to a third Judge, because the procedure of the High Court and the powers of Judges were separately regulated and no saving provision displaced Section 98(2). It also notes that where readiness and willingness was a pure issue of fact sufficient to decide the appeals, interference under Article 136 was not warranted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 20 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191356