Bailabel Type : bailable

Description

Section 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) deals with the procedure for decisions when an appeal is heard by more than one judge. This provision ensures that when a matter is considered by a bench of judges, there is a clear process for how decisions are made, particularly in cases where there may be differing opinions among the judges on the bench.

Key Provisions of Section 98:

1. Appeals Heard by Multiple Judges:

   • Section 98 applies to cases where the appeal is heard by two or more judges (commonly referred to as a bench).
   • In certain circumstances, an appeal may be heard by more than one judge, especially in higher courts like the High Court. This may occur if the matter is complex, involves important questions of law, or the court decides that a multi-judge bench is necessary.

2. Decision When Judges Are Divided:

   • The section provides clarity on how decisions are taken if there is a difference of opinion between the judges in a multi-judge bench.
   • If the judges of the bench are not in agreement on the outcome of the appeal, Section 98 outlines the procedure to resolve the matter:
     • If there is agreement between the judges, the decision is passed based on their collective judgment.
     • If the judges differ in their opinions (i.e., there is a dissenting opinion), the judgment or decision will be made based on the majority view. If no majority view exists, the case may be referred to a larger bench or further deliberations may be needed.

3. When Judges Differ:

   • In case of a difference of opinion between the judges, the decision is rendered according to the majority opinion. However, if there is no majority, the decision of the court is not finalized until the matter is resolved by a larger bench or a further full bench hearing.
   • This provision ensures that if there is any divergence in views among the judges, the case is not left unresolved and will be taken to a higher authority for final adjudication.

4. Role of Chief Justice:

   • In cases where the bench cannot form a majority, the Chief Justice of the court may be called upon to decide on the matter, or a larger bench may be constituted.

5. Objective of Section 98:

   • The main aim of this section is to provide certainty and consistency in decisions. If there are differences between judges on the appeal, the matter is resolved either through a majority decision or by referring the case to a larger bench to ensure that justice is delivered appropriately and that conflicting opinions do not create confusion or inconsistency in the law.

Punishment

Section 98 primarily deals with procedural issues related to decision-making in cases with a multi-judge bench. It does not prescribe any punishment or penalty for the parties involved. However, there are certain consequences in terms of legal procedure:

1. Delay in Decision:

   • If the judges differ significantly, it may cause delay in the final decision, especially if the case is referred to a larger bench.

2. Further Review:

   • In cases where there is no majority opinion and the matter is referred to a larger bench, this could lead to a reconsideration of legal principles or a more thorough review, which may alter the outcome of the case.

3. Costs and Consequences of Appeal:

   • If the case is referred to a larger bench or a further review is conducted, the parties may be required to bear additional legal costs due to the prolonged proceedings.

4. Finality of Decision:

   • Once the majority decision is reached, it will be binding, and the case will proceed to execution or conclusion based on the judgment.