The Chief Justice has the inherent power to constitute a new Bench to hear the review petition in exceptional circumstances or to meet an extraordinary situation.

( 1 ) THE instant petition to review the final judgment in Writ Appeal No. 903 of 1994 has been occasioned for the reason that the Bench consisting of Lingaraja Rath, J. and D. Reddeppa Reddi has ordered that in view of the judgment of this Court in Kum. K. Pushpa Leela v. Labour Court, Guntur, (1991) 3 ALT 22 (Notes on Recent Cases) and G. Padma v. Dr. B. Vijaya Lakshmi, (1994) 3 ALT 318, it has to be heard by Reddeppa Reddi, J. alone because A. Lakshmana Rao, J. , has since demitted the office and learned counsel for the petitioners has circulated a letter stating that the matter should not be heard by Reddeppa Reddi, J. , as he was the Standing Counsel for the respondents before his elevation as a Judge. No objection, however, was taken when the writ appeal was taken up for hearing that Reddeppa Reddi, J. , should not hear the appeal. The order that the matter should be heard by Reddeppa Reddi, J. , was passed by a Bench, of which Reddeppa Reddi, J. , was a Member,

( 2 ) BEFORE we take up the petition for hearing, we propose to clarify the legal position. Is it correct to say that in all cases and in all circumstances a petition for reviewing the judgment delivered by a Judge or a Bench of Judges should be heard by the Judge or the Judges constituting the Bench and when one or more of the Judges constituting the Bench are not available, by the remaining Judge who is available? In Kum. K. Pushpa Leela v. Labour Court, Guntur, (1991) 3 ALT 22 (NRC) (supra), a Bench of this Court has stated as follows: "under the provisions of Order 47, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure in case one of the Judges of the Division Bench has retired from service or has been elevated to the Supreme Court and therefore cannot form a party to the Bench before whom the review application is filed, then the remaining Judge alone shall hear the application for review and the decision of the single Judge passed on that review application is deemed to be the order of the Division Bench. It is the remaining Judge alone who has to hear the review petition and no other Judge. Moreover, the remaining Judge forming part of the Division Bench along with another Judge who has not heard the matter earlier should not have the jurisdiction to hear the review application. "in G. Padma v. Dr. B. Vijaya Lakshmi, (1994 (3) ALT 318) (Supra), a Bench of this Court has expressed: "if the original verdict was made by two Judges, and if one of them does not continue to be attached to the Court, the other Judge who continues to be attached to the Court alone shall deal with the review petition. It cannot be dealt with by any other Judge or Judges or by the same Judge sitting along with any other Judge who was not a party to the original verdict. "the Bench has further stated: "if there is a refusal to review, the original verdict stands confirmed and is left undisturbed by the Court. If review is allowed, the reviewed verdict gets substituted in the place of the original verdict. When the original verdict is that of a Bench consisting of two Judges, merely because the review has been dealt with by one of the two Judges on account of the non-availability of the other Judge as enabled by Order XLVII, Rule 5 of the Code, the decision rendered on review will not cease to be the decision of the Bench as such. "order XLVII, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure says, where the Judge or Judges, or any one of the Judges, who passed the decree or made the order, a review of which is applied for, continues or continue attached to the Court at the time when the application for a review is presented, and is not or are not precluded by absence or other cause for a period of six months next after the application from considering the decree or order to which the application refers, such Judge or Judges or any of them shall hear the application, and no other Judge or Judges of the Court shall hear the same. Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides, the procedure provided i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document