MP High Court: a coordinate bench disagreeing with an earlier ruling must refer it to a larger bench, not overrule it

Deciding an application to restore possession pending a civil first appeal against an eviction decree passed under Sections 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore (Justice Vinay Saraf) held that the executing court was not legally required to issue prior notice to the judgment-debtor before executing the eviction decree, since, by the Madhya Pradesh amendment to Order XXI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, no execution order is invalid merely for omission to issue such notice. The Court noted that an earlier coordinate-bench ruling (Dr. Subhash Chandra Jain) had taken a different view without considering the MP amendment, and disagreed with it.

But applying the doctrine of judicial discipline, the Court held that a bench of equal strength cannot itself overrule or depart from a coordinate bench's earlier view merely because it considers that view incorrect; it can only refer the question to the Chief Justice for consideration by a larger bench. It accordingly framed the question — whether notice to the judgment-debtor is mandatory before executing a decree of possession or eviction within two years of the decree, given Order XXI Rule 22 CPC and the MP amendment — and referred it to the Chief Justice for constitution of a larger bench, while vacating earlier interim orders and directing the parties to maintain status quo.