TMI Blog1982 (2) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of that statutory provision has been referred to this Full Bench for decision. Section 155(4)( b ) reads thus: "(4) From any order passed by the court on the application, or on any issue raised therein and tried separately, an appeal shall lie on the grounds mentioned in section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ........ ( b ) if the order be passed by a single judge of a High Court consisting of three or more judges, to a Bench of that High Court." The sole question for determination is as to whether this statutory provision is meant for a decision of an appeal against the order passed by a single judge of the High Court to be heard by a Division Bench or a Bench consisting of the Full Court. Mr. Joshi's contention is that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctions are equally open, that alternative is to be chosen which will be consistent with the smooth working of the system which the statute purports to be regulating and that alternative is to be rejected which will introduce uncertainty, friction or confusion into the working of the system. The further rule of interpretation of the statute is that a construction which would leave without affecting any part of the language of a statute will normally be rejected. Reference is made in this connection to the cases of Salmon v. Duncombe [1886] 11 App. Cas. 627, Glamorgan County Council v. Carter [1963] 1 WLR 1 (QB), Wynn v. Skegness Urban District Council [1967] 1 WLR 52 (Ch D). And, yet another rule of interpretation which has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essarily beard by a Division Bench which would include the judge who had decided the matter. That would certainly be a ground for bias. If the Legislature has not so laid it down, it is none of the part of the court to fill up the casus omissus. It is well settled that an Act ought not to be so construed as to convict the Legislature of having used an expression which would be absurd. The principle of casus omissus is not to be created or applied by the court as referred to in Robert Wigram Crawford v. Richard Spooner [1846] 6 Moors (PC) 1 ; 14 MIA 179, Keyes v. Elkins [1864] 5 B S 240 ; Mersey Docks Harbour Board v. Henderson Brothers [1888] 13 App. Cas. 595 (HL) at page 602, Lord Howard De Walden v. Inland Revenue C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
