Judgment ( 1. ) THIS order shall finally dispose of Writ Appeals No. 704/2008 (Kalam Scooter Service Vs Shri Shri 1008 Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Swami swaroopanand Ji Maharaj), 705/2008 (Kallu Scooter Service Vs Shri Shri 1008 jagat Guru Shankaracharya Swami Swaroopanand Ji Maharaj), 706/2008 (Siddhu engineering Works Vs Shri Shri 1008 Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Swami swaroopanand Ji Maharaj) and 707/2008 (Bhatia Tyres Vs. Shri Shri 1008 Jagat guru Shankaracharya Swami Swaroopanand Ji Maharaj as they arise out of common order dated 5. 5. 2008 passed in Writ Petitions No. 7664/2007,4993/2008, 4994/2008 and 4995/2008. ( 2. ) THE short facts necessary for disposal of these Writ Appeals are that the respondent/plaintiff filed number of suits for eviction of the tenants on the ground of arrears of rent and for reconstruction of the dilapidated tenanted premises. Each of the petitioner tenant in the premises filed his written statement and challenged the title of the plaintiff to the property on the ground that the property in fact belonged not to the plaintiff but someone else. The matter was adjourned to 25. 3. 2006 and as none appeared on the said date the Court proceeded exparte in the said matter. The counsel for the defendants appeared in the Court on 15. 5. 2006 and immediately thereafter each of the tenant on 17. 5. 2006 filed application under order 9 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the exparte order. It was contended in the applications that due to some inadvertence or mistake on the part of the counsel the date was noted as 15. 5. 2006 instead of 25. 3. 2006. The application filed under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC was contested tooth and nail. But it was rejected mainly on the ground that as nothing was required to be done in the matter and matter was closed for orders an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of cpc was not maintainable in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Arjun Singh Vs. Mohindra Kumar. AIR 1964 SC 993 . The Court thereafter proceeded to deliver the judgment which was actually delivered on 12. 9. 2006. ( 3. ) EACH of the appellant vide their application dated 25. 9. 2006 applied for the certified copies of the judgment and decree. The same were received on 1. 11. Mohindra Kumar. AIR 1964 SC 993 . The Court thereafter proceeded to deliver the judgment which was actually delivered on 12. 9. 2006. ( 3. ) EACH of the appellant vide their application dated 25. 9. 2006 applied for the certified copies of the judgment and decree. The same were received on 1. 11. 2006 and an application for setting aside the exparte decree was filed on 16. 11. 2006. Undisputedly application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay or setting aside or for extension of the time was not filed. When an objection was raised before the learned Trial Court that the application for setting aside the exparte decree was not well within limitation as provided under Article 123 of the limitation Act, it was contended by each of the appellant that 38 days time spent for obtaining the certified copies of the judgment and decree was required to be excluded and under the circumstances the appeal was filed within 27 days of the exparte judgment and decree. It was submitted before the Trial Court that from the date of the exparte judgment and decree i. e. 12. 9. 2006 only 65 days had passed up to 16. 11. 2006 when application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC was filed and therefore, the application was well within limitation and application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was not required. On opposition by the decree holder/non-applicant, the learned Trial Court upholding the objection held that the application for setting aside exparte decree was barred by limitation and in absence of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the delay could not be condoned. ( 4. ) EACH of the appellant/defendant being aggrieved by the order dated 23. 4. 2007 preferred Miscellaneous Appeals under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a submission that the order passed by the learned Trial court was patently illegal. The Miscellaneous Appeals were registered as MCA no. 13, 14, 15 and 16 of 2007. After hearing the parties, the learned District judge allowed each of the appeal and remanded the matter back for trial of the application to the learned Trial Court observing that in view of the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Shakuntala Singh Vs. 13, 14, 15 and 16 of 2007. After hearing the parties, the learned District judge allowed each of the appeal and remanded the matter back for trial of the application to the learned Trial Court observing that in view of the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Shakuntala Singh Vs. Basant kumar Thakur and others {2003 (3) MPLJ 414)}, the time spent in obtaining the certified copies of the judgment and decree was required to be excluded and the trial Court was unjustified in dismissing the petitions for setting side the exparte judgment and decree. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned appellate Court, the respondent/petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 7664/2007 and challenged the four orders passed in four different Misc. Civil Appeals. After notice the respondents appeared in the Court and raised a preliminary objection that if there were four suits, four exparte decrees, four applications for setting aside exparte decree, four Misc. Civil Appeals then one single writ petition was not maintainable. In view of the said objection the present respondent filed three more writ petitions bearing No. 4993/2008,4994/2008 and 4995/2008. Notices were duly served in these matters and the matters were finally heard. The learned Single judge vide order dated 5. 5. 2008 decided all the writ petitions by a common order. Being aggrieved by the said orders, four writ appeals have been filed by the defendants. ( 5. ) SHRI R. K. Verma. learned counsel for the appellant raised many fold submissions which can be summarized as under: (i) That the learned Single Judge despite recording the argument of the appellant that against the order passed by the appellate Court a revision could lie to the High Court, erred in exercising his powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of india; (ii) That the learned Single Judge if was not agreeing with the judgment in the matter of Shakuntala Singh (supra) then he was duty bound and obliged to refer the matter to a larger Bench; and (iii) That the time spent in obtaining the certified copies of the judgment and decree has to be excluded from the period of limitation. It is also submitted by him that if this Court is of the opinion that the learned single Judge was justified in interfering in the matter then he should have remanded the matter back to the learned Trial Court with liberty in favour of the applicant to file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. ( 6. ) MS. Neelam Goel, learned counsel for the respondent contending contrary to the submissions made by Shri Verma, however, submitted that though a revision could lie to this Court under Section 115 of the CPC but in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chancier Rai and others, 2003 (II) MPJR 349, the High Court was not precluded from exercising its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. It was also submitted that the learned Single Judge was absolutely justified in distinguishing the law laid down in the matter of Shakuntala Singh (supra) and that the learned Single judge was absolutely justified in observing that in view of Article 123 read with section 12 of the Indian Limitation Act, the time spent in obtaining the certified copies could not be excluded. ( 7. ) SO far as the question relating to maintainability of the petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is concerned, it is to be seen from the order passed by the learned Single Judge that a question was raised before him submitting that a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was not maintainable but the learned Single Judge did not decide the said question. , ( 8. ) IN the matter of Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and Ors. , the supreme Court upholding Full Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in live matter of Ganga Saran Vs. Civil Judge, Hapur, Ghaziabad and others. (1991) Allahabad Law Journal 159 observed that even interlocutory order passed in a civil suit is not subject to review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but if it is found from the order impugned that fundamental principle of law has been violated and further such an order causes substantial injustice to the party aggrieved, the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of certiorari is not precluded. If the observations made by the Full Bench are to be read in their true perspective, it would clearly appear that the Supreme Court was not holding that even on availability of alternative remedy under Section 115 of the CPC, a writ under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would lie. However, the observations made by the Supreme Court would be that in a given case where abuse of the process of law or violation of the fundamental principle of law and substantial injustice to the parties are found then the High Court can exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 9. ) IN the present matter from the nature of the order passed by the learned Single judge, it would clearly appear that instead of deciding the question of the maintainability of the writ petition he exercised his powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of india on the foundation that the order passed by the learned District Judge was violating fundamental principle of law and was causing substantial injustice to the petitioners. In any case, the learned Single Judge did not answer the question raised before him that even on availability of an alternative remedy of a civil revision, should the court exercise its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. If the learned single has exercised his powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India then an appeal before us under Section 2 of the Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 would be maintainable. ( 10. ) IT is to be seen from the order passed by the learned Single Judge that he did not agree with the law laid down in the matter of Shakuntala Singh (supra)on the ground that the learned Single Judge did not take into consideration the provisions of Article 123 of the Indian Limitation Act. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that Article 123 of the Limitation Act which relates to setting aside of an exparte decree or to re-hear an appeal heard or decreed exparte, the limitation would start from the date of the judgment and decree and the time spent in obtaining the certified copies of the judgment and decree could not be excluded. ( 11. ( 11. ) THE judicial propriety according to the Supreme Court requires every coordinate bench to refer the matter to a larger bench if a bench subsequently hearing a matter is not in agreement with the earlier judgment which was holding the field. The basic principle behind the observation is that the parties at the threshold should know that what is the settled position of law. If the judges take different views in accordance with their own wisdom then not only the Judges of the High Court but even the judges of the Subordinate Judiciary would every time face a difficult or impossible situation. In a given case in the High Court coordinate bench finding that two judgments delivered by the two learned Single Judges are running contrary to each other and cannot be reconciled they may refer the matter to the larger bench but the problem in fact would be with the Judges of the subordinate Courts who would be bound by each of the judgment. In the matter of shakuntala Singh (supra), the learned Single Judge relying upon the judgment of the privy Council in the matter of Jijibhoy N. Surty Vs. T. S. Chjettyar, AIR 1928 Privy council 103 and in the matter of Additional Collector of Customs Vs. Best and Co. AIR 1966 SC 1713 and other judgments observed that the time spent in obtaining the certified copies of judgment and decree have to be excluded and the application for setting aside the exparte order/exparte decree could not be rejected. ( 12. ) IN the impugned orders, the learned Single Judge instead of referring the matter to a larger Bench simply observed that as the judgment in the matter of shakuntala Singh (supra) did not take into consideration the impact and effect of Article 123 of the Indian Limitation Act, the judgment in the matter of shakuntala Singh (supra) would not apply to the case on hands. In our considered opinion the learned Single Judge if was of the opinion that the judgment in the matter of Shakuntala Singh (supra) was not deciding correct law or did not take into consideration all provisions of law then he should refer the matter to the chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench. In our considered opinion the learned Single Judge if was of the opinion that the judgment in the matter of Shakuntala Singh (supra) was not deciding correct law or did not take into consideration all provisions of law then he should refer the matter to the chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench. As already observed a judgment by coordinate Bench cannot be ignored on the ground that the judgment though takes a legal view but is not binding because it does not take into consideration the other legal aspects or provisions of law. ( 13. ) TAKING into consideration the totality of the circumstances, we propose to interfere in the matter and set aside the orders passed in the four matters in favour of the respondents and remand the matter to a learned Single Bench for deciding the matter afresh. The learned Single Judge shall take up the issue relating to maintainability of the writ application under Article 227 of the Constitution of india in case a revision is held to be maintainable under Section 115 of CPC. If the learned Single Bench is of the opinion that the judgment in the matter of shakuntala Singh (supra) is not in accordance with law or can be disapproved or can be distinguished then he shall refer the matter to a larger Bench. We make it clear that we are deciding the writ appeals on the preliminary submissions and are not touching the merits of the matter which are still to be decided by the learned Single Judge while exercising his powers either under Article 227 of the constitution of India or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 14. ) THE Registry is hereby directed to restore the writ petitions at their original numbers and place the same before the appropriate Bench on 15. 9. 2008. The parties present in the Court shall appear before the appropriate Bench on 15. 9. 2008. The learned Single Judge is requested to provide proper opportunity to the parties to raise their submissions not only on the technical objection or legal ground but even on the merits of the matters. There shall be no orders as to costs. Order accordingly.