Paresh Nath Mookherjee, J. - (1.) We very much regret that we ever asked for or made this Reference. The object, which we had in view at the time, has been entirely frustrated, as the Reference has not been answered by the Full Bench and the matter has been remitted back to us under an apparent mistake or misconception or misapprehension as to the Rule of this Court, under which this Reference was made or sent by us. We sought for quick assistance to resolve a deepening judicial crisis which was fast developing. That assistance has been deferred, if not altogether denied.
(2.) In our order of Reference, no doubt, there was an obvious typographical error in that Rule 2 was mentioned, in place of Rule 3, of Chapter VII of the Appellate Side Rules. But the said order of Reference was sufficiently clear on the point, as it distinctly mentioned that it was a Reference in an appeal from original decree, which, patently, attracted Rule 3 and had connection with Rule 2, which dealt with References in other cases. Even without such mention, it could not have been overlooked that it was a Reference in a pending First Appeal, which came directly under Rule 3 and to which Rule 2 had no application.
(3.) We were also a little surprised that this simple thing or this obvious typographical error was not detected or pointed out at the hearing before the Full Bench. We were told and Mr. Lala was emphatic on this point that the hearing before the Full Bench proceeded under Rule 3 but the order of the Full Bench indicates otherwise, as it contains no reference at all to Rule 3 and no mention of it, while it quotes Rule 2 in full and relies on and discusses a decision of this Court Kubir Molla v. Manik Mallik, 65 CWN 420, in a Reference under Rule 2 for assuming jurisdiction to remit the matter to us.;