Not Open To One Division Bench To Hold That They Do Not Agree With Reasoning Of Other & Adopt A Different View: Madras High Court
The Court held that Rules Committee's Draft Amendment does not acquire force of law without government sanction under Sections 126-127 CPC, dismissed appeal on merits applying bar under Sections 91-92 Evidence Act.
The Madras High Court has held that it is not open to a Division Bench to disagree with the reasoning of another coordinate Division Bench and proceed to take a fresh look at the same issue, reiterating that judicial discipline requires a coordinate Bench either to follow the earlier ruling or refer the point of disagreement to a larger Bench.
The Court further held that a draft rule amendment proposed and approved by a High Court's Rules Committee does not automatically acquire the force of law, since it must still pass through the Full Court, receive the sanction of the State Government under Section 126 CPC, and be published in the official Gazette under Section 127 before it can take effect.
On the substantive appeal before it, the Court dismissed the challenge to a money decree, holding that oral evidence could not be let in to contradict the sale consideration recorded in a registered sale deed, by virtue of the bar under Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act.
A Division Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice V. Lakshminarayanan observed, “With greatest respect to the Division Bench in Chennai Port Authority’s case (cited supra), we have to point out that it is not open to one Division Bench to hold that they do not agree with the reasoning of another Division Bench and will take a fresh look at the matter or adopt a different view”.
“The issue referred to the Division Bench in P.R.Saravanan -vsDhanalakshmi, cited supra, was a very short one. The question being whether a regular appeal must be listed for admission. That had been answered by the Division Bench. Unless and until the said judgment is reversed by the Supreme Court or overruled by a larger Bench, it continues to hold the field”, the Bench further noted.
Advocate S. Vinoth Kumar appeared for the appellant.
The appeal arose from a suit for recovery of Rs.25,00,000 filed by the plaintiff against the first defendant, from whom he had agreed to purchase land in 2016 for Rs.50,27,809 and to whom he had paid advance amounts totalling Rs.25,00,000. The first defendant later sold the same property to a second defendant, who was arrayed in the suit but remained ex parte.
The first defendant contended that the plaintiff himself had identified the second defendant as a substitute purchaser, that the advance amount paid by the plaintiff had been adjusted towards the higher sale consideration payable by the second defendant, and that the sale deed executed in favour of the second defendant had thereby rendered the original agreement infructuous.
The Trial Court decreed the suit, finding no documentary or satisfactory oral evidence of any such adjustment and noting that the sale deed itself recorded a consideration of only Rs.40,48,000, not the higher figure claimed by the first defendant.
Before addressing the merits, the Bench noted that the appeal had been listed by the Registry "for admission", a practice traced through a sequence of conflicting single-Judge and Division Bench rulings on whether regular first appeals under Section 96 require such listing, culminating in a Division Bench ruling in Chennai Port Authority Others v. J.Chandrasekaran and Others, 2026-2-L.W.766 that had declined to follow an earlier coordinate Division Bench decision in P.R. Saravanan v. Dhanalakshmi (2025) 4 CTC 569 and directed that all appeals be listed for admission pending a proposed Rules Committee amendment.
“…while dealing with an issue which is already covered by a binding pronouncement, a subsequent Division Bench cannot address the issue afresh, but it is expected of a Judge that he / she raises above a perceived wrong reasoning in the earlier judgment and follow the precedent. Such is the nature of life that at all times it throws situations which leaves one wonderstruck. That does not make the slate a fresh one, to lay lines and draw upon. We should also point out that the judgments in all the four cases did not deal with Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act which was the subject matter in Chennai Port Authority’s case, but dealt with the scope of Section 96 read with Order XLI. In an appeal arising under the Commercial Courts Act, views expressed on non-commercial regular appeals are but obiter dicta”, the Bench observed.
It further held that the Chennai Port Authority ruling's premise, that the Rules Committee's approval of a draft amendment brought it into effect, was contrary to the statutory scheme under Sections 122 to 127 of the CPC, since such rules require Full Court approval and Government sanction before acquiring legal force. Accordingly, the Court held that the Registry shall continue to follow the law laid down in P.R. Saravanan.
On the merits, the Court held that since the plea of discharge was raised by the first defendant, the burden lay on him to prove it, and that his failure to examine the second defendant, the co-attesting witness to the sale deed, or the advocate who drafted it, was fatal to his case.
It held that the terms of the registered sale deed, which recorded the consideration as Rs.40,48,000, barred any oral evidence to prove a higher figure, applying the principle in State Bank of India & another v. Mula Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited AIR 2007 SC 2361.
The Court accordingly dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, with no order as to costs.
Cause Title: D. Paramasivam v. P. Arunachalam & Anr. A.S. No. 535 of 2026 and C.M.P. No. 12823 of 2026
Appearances:
Appellants: S. Vinoth Kumar, G.C. Nelson Britto, Advocates.