Indrajit Chatterjee, J. - (1.) It is the submission of Mr. Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, that on similar fact and law point, judgement was delivered by this Court on 20-04-2016 in C.O. No. 1941 of 2013. Mr. Mukherjee has supplied a plain copy of that civil order and submits that in this case the order be passed so that this revisional application can be governed by the judgment as passed in the revisional application being C.O. No. 1941 of 2013 as the same fact and law point is involved in this case also.
(2.) In counter to all these, it is submitted by Mr. Srivastava, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, by taking me to a judgement passed by this Court in connection with C.O. No. 3443 of 2010 (Subrata Mukherjee v. Bishakha Das) wherein the Bench differed with the earlier judgement of the co-ordinate Bench and preferred to place the matter before a Special Bench on the subject in issue.
(3.) Thus, he submitted that when the judgment of the Single Bench of this court as passed in connection with C.O. No. 55 of 2014 was not considered by this Court, then this Court while disposed of the C.O. No. 1941 of 2013 ought to have referred the matter to be decided by a larger Bench. In the same breath, he submitted that there is a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court as reported in (2003) 5 SCC 448 (State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer) wherein the Apex Court proceeded to say like this:- " " ¦ " ¦ we would like to say that an earlier decision may seem to be incorrect to a Bench of a coordinate jurisdiction considering the question later, on the ground that a possible aspect of the matter was not considered or not raised before the court or more aspects should have been gone into by the court deciding the matter earlier but it would not be a reason to say that the decision was rendered per incuriam and liable to be ignored. The earlier judgement may seem to be not correct yet it will have the binding effect on the later Bench of coordinate jurisdiction. Easy course of saying that earlier decision was rendered per incuriam is not permissible and the matter will have to be resolved only in two ways - either to follow the earlier decision or refer the matter to a larger Bench to examine the issue, in case it is felt that earlier decision is not correct on merits".;