Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to proceedings before Claims Tribunals constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, as the Act and the rules framed thereunder do not provide for the impleadment of parties whose motor vehicles are not involved in the accident.

JUDGMENT :

SATHIADEV, J.

1. These writ petitions coming on for hearing on Tuesday, the 30th day of October, 1981 and this day, upon perusing these petitions and their respective affidavits filed in support thereof the order of the High Court, dated 23.1.79 (in W.P. 625/79 and W.P. No. 691 to 694/79) made herein and the counter affidavit filed herein and the records relating to I.A. No. 912/78 in MACTOP No. 111/78 (2) MACTOP No. 1042/78 in MACTOP 193/78 (3) I.A. No. 913/78 in MACTOP No. 143/78 (4) I.A. No. 215/78 in MACTOP No. 191/78 and (5) I.A. No. 914/78 in MACTOP No. 159/78 respectively dated 23.1.79 on the file of the 1st Respondent and comprised in its return to the writ made by the High Court and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. K. Raman, advocate for the Petitioner in all the petitions and of Mr. C. Chinnaswami for Government pleader on behalf of the 1st Respondent in all the petitions, Mr. S. Sampath Kumar advocate for the 5th Respondent in W.P. No. 625/79, 3rd Respondent in W.P. 691/79, 693 and 694/79 and 4th Respondent in W.P. 692/79 and of Mr. K. Chandramouli, advocate for the 6th Respondent in W.P. No. 625/79 for the 4th Respondent in W.P. No. 693 and 694/79 and other Respondent in all the petitions not appearing in person or by advocate' the Court made the following Order:

2. The petitions are filed challenging the correctness of the impugned order wherein the Tribunal has held that when there is a conflict between two decisions of the High Court, the rule to be adopted is that the decision of a Division Bench should prevail over the decision of a single Judge and the decision of a larger Bench over that of a Division Bench, as held in Ramasubbaravalu Reddiar v. Rengammal (1962) 2 M.L.J. 318 and hence the Division Bench decision of Gauhati High Court will prevail over the single judge decision of this Court. Mr. Raman, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, would at the outset state that the decision of the Full Bench has been totally misconstrued, in that the rule laid down would be applicable only in respect of decisions rendered by the concerned High Court and cannot be extended when decisions are rendered by different High Courts. The Tribunal had chosen to rely upon the Division Bench decision of the Gauhati High Court, in preference to the judgment of this Court rendered by a single Judge in Union of India v. P. Kailasam 1974 A.C.J. 488 (Mad.). It is quite obvious from what has been laid down by the Full Bench of this Court that subordinate Courts are bound by decisions of this Court and in the absence of any conflict between the decision of a single Judge and a larger bench, the Court is bound to follow the decision of the single Judge of this Court, unless it is able to distinguish the decisions on the facts of the case and prefer to adopt the reasoning of a decision of any other High Court or even the Courts in other countries. Therefore, there being a patent error of law committed on the face of the order, it deserves to be set aside.

3. The next point taken by Mr. Raman, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, is that when the Petitioner herein had come forward to plead that the accident was due to the negligence of BHEL and not because of the Petitioner there is the need for impleading BHEL as a necessary and proper party in the O.P. filed by Respondents 3 to 4 herein. In Union of India v. P. Kailasam 1974 A.C.J. 488 (Mad.), this Court took the view that when the accident is caused not only due to the motor vehicle which is involved in the accident, but also due to the acts committed by anybody else and in the said case it being the railways--the learned judge came to the conclusion that the railways having been already impleaded by orders of the Tribunal, no just cause was made out for deleting them from being parties to the proceedings. On the scope of Order I, Rule 10, no firm conclusion was arrived at. Mr. Raman relies upon New India Assurance Co. v. Punjab Roadways 1958 A.C.J. 381 (Punjab), wherein it has b