Judgment :- 1. The preliminary question for consideration is whether a petition for review of a judgment passed by a Bench of two judges can be heard by one of them or by a Division Bench including one of them, if the other judge is still attached to the Court but is absent for a period less than six months next after the petition. One of us and another learned judge disposed of the appeal; and that other judge is now on leave for a period less than six months. The above petition has been filed for reviewing the said Division Bench decision; and the question we have to consider is whether, under R.5 of 0.47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Bench or one of us who was a party to the Division Bench can hear the petition. 2. Rule 5 of O.47 reads: "Where the judge or judges, or any one of the judges, who passed the decree or made the order, a review of which is applied for, continues or continue attached to the Court at the time when the application for a review is presented, and is not or are not precluded by absence or other cause for a period of six months next after the application from considering the decree or order to which the application refers, such judge or judges or any of them shall hear the application, and no other judge or judges of the Court shall bear the same." 3. Three possibilities are contemplated by this provision: (1) where one judge passes a decree or makes an order and the said decree or order is sought to be reviewed, that judge must hear the petition for review, if he is attached to the Court at the time when the petition is presented and is not precluded by absence or other cause for a period of six months next after the petition from considering the decree or order; (2) when more than one judge pass the decree or make the order and if all of them continue attached to the Court and are not precluded by absence or other cause for a period of six months from considering the decree or order, then all the judges must bear the petition; and (3) if more than one judge pass the decree or make the order and if any of them is still attached to the Court and is not precluded by absence or otherwise for a period of six months from considering the decree or order, then he must hear the petition for review in otherwords, if all the judges are not available but only one of them is available, then that one judge shall hear the review petition even if the decree was passed or order was made by more judges than one. And no other judge or judges of the Court shall hear the petition. 4. This is what is indicated by the language of R.5 of 0.47: it is therefore clear that, in the present case, where the decree was passed by two judges and one of them is present and the other one is still attached to the Court and is not precluded from hearing the petition by reason of absence or other cause for six months (his leave being only for less than six months), the petition has to be heard by both the judges when the other judge returns. And the petition cannot be heard by any other judge by this Division Bench too, where a learned judge, who was not a party to the Division Bench which passed the decree, is also there. Nor can the petition be heard by one of us alone, who was a party to the Division Bench which passed the decree, since the other judge is not precluded from considering the decree for six months. 5. Nor can the petition be heard by one of us alone, who was a party to the Division Bench which passed the decree, since the other judge is not precluded from considering the decree for six months. 5. This is a rare case; and naturally authorities are also rare. At any rate, an old decision of the Calcutta High Court has been brought to our notice the Full Bench decision in Jagat Chandra Acharji v. Syama Charan Bhattachar jee (AIR. 1919 Cal. 1033(2)), where a similar view was taken. 6. We therefore direct the review petition to be posted for hearing after Unnikrishna Kurup J., who was a party to the Division Bench, to which one of us was also a party, returns from leave. The petition will be posted before the same Division Bench which disposed of the appeal.