Ramakrishnan, J. - The correctness of the Division Bench decision reported in Kumaresan v. Ameerappa1, which settled the conflict between two earlier decisions of two learned Single Judges of this Court was doubted by another Division Bench In this Crl. Miscellaneous Case and it is thus the case Is before us. In the reference order the Division Bench has pointed out that in the light of the decisions in M/s. Syed Rasool & Sons v. Aildas & Co.2; Rakesh Porwal v. Narayan Joglekar3; Voltas Ltd v; Hiralal Agarwalla4, and Arjun Marik v. State of Bihar5, the decision of the Division Bench in Kumaresan's case requires reconsideration. The conflict settled by Kumaresan's decision was between the judgments in Mahadevan Suni Kumar v. Bhadran6, and the judgments in Crt. R.P. No. 480 of 1990. In Kumaresan's case the Division Bench has approved the view taken in Crl R.P. No. 480 of 1990 and has disapproved the view taken in Mahadevan's case.

2. Before dealing with the point arising for consideration, we may refer briefly to the conflict settled by Kumaresan's case. In Mahadevan's case Balakrishnan, J. has held that causes of action for filing the complaint may arise on sever