- (1.) THE Additional Commissioner, Jodhpur, while hearing appeal No. 226 of 1953, Likhma vs. Ram Din was confronted with two conflicting decisions of the Board on the following point: - - "Does an appeal lie under sec. 18 of the Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act against an order passed on an application in suit even if the order be of an interlocutory nature."
(2.) ONE of these decision was a Full Bench ruling of the Board in review petition No. 138/Jaipur of 2008, (1952 R.L.W. - -Revenue Supplement - - 67) in which it was held that an appeal lay from every order passed in a suit or on an application even if the order appealed against was an order of interim nature. The other decision was given by a Division Bench in case No. 17 of Svt. 2009, District Pali, Shera vs. Rema decided on 19.8.1953 in which it was held that appeals against the interim orders were not contemplated by the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act. The Additional Commissioner had doubts on the point whether a Division Bench ruling of subsequent date should prevail over a Full Bench ruling of the Board. Accordingly he made a reference to the Board for a clarification on this point. Obviously such a reference is not covered by sec. 28 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act. A reference under this section can be made only if the Commissioner while examining a case pending before or decided by a court subordinate to him is of the opinion that the order passed or the proceedings taken by such court should be varied, cancelled or reversed. The case like the present one wherein the Commissioner entertained doubt as regards the force of judicial precede its in a case pending before himself is not covered by this section. The point, however, referred to by the Additional Commissioner could have been decided by him by a reference to any standard text book. We may refer to note 15 on page 45 of Chitaleys C. P. C. 5th Edition 1950 and the various decisions of the High Courts examined in it. "A Judge of the High Court sitting alone is not bound on a question of law by the decision of another Judge sitting alone; but a single Judge of the High Courts bound by decision of the Bench of two or more Judges and a Bench of two or more Judges is itself bound by the decisions of the Full Bench of the same court until they are over -ruled another Full Bench". This would have provided a complete answer to the doubt entertained by the Additional Commissioner and no reference would have been necessary in the matter. ;