JUDGMENT : (A. Badharudeen, J.) : This Original Petition, has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs: i) Call for the records relating to Exhibit P8 order from the Sub Court, Ottapalam: ii) Set aside Exhibits P8 order; iii) Grant such other reliefs found just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the impugned order and the relevant materials available. 3. In this matter, the petitioner herein is the plaintiff and respondents are defendant Nos. 1 to 4 in O.S. No.64/2013 on the files of the Sub Court, Ottapalam. The grievance of the petitioner is that, though as per order dated 13.12.2018 in I.A. No.505/2013 in O.S. No.64/2013, a commissioner was deputed to note out the essentials for the just decision of the case, the commissioner filed Ext.P4 report and omitted to locate many things asked for. At this juncture, the petitioner herein filed I.A. No.1300/2017 with prayer to set aside and remit the commission report for getting a detailed report noting out all the matters referred in I.A. No.505/2013. But, as per Ext.P8 order dated 13.12.2018, the learned Sub Judge dismissed the application. 4. On perusal of the commission report and Ext.P6 petition, it appears that the grievance advanced by the petitioner in the matter of not reporting all the detailes asked for in the petition is having force. It is also perceivable that, plaint C schedule way is shown little bit away from the western side of plaint B schedule, in fact, the same according to the parties itself is on the extreme western side. 5. In so far as the question as to whether a commission report can be set aside or remitted back, there are divergent decisions. In the decision reported in Yudathadevus v. Joseph [ 2021 (5) KHC 668 : 2021 KHC OnLine 649 : 2021 (4) KLJ 415 : 2021 (6) KLT SN 36 : 2021 (5) KLT OnLine 1040 : 2021 KER 37905], this Court considered this question with reference to the earlier judgments of this Court. In the decision reported in ( 1985 KLT 144 (1985 KHC 36: 1985 KLJ 225 : AIR 1985 Ker. In the decision reported in ( 1985 KLT 144 (1985 KHC 36: 1985 KLJ 225 : AIR 1985 Ker. 83 : 1985 KLN SN 8) Swami Premananda Bharathi v. Swami Yogananda Bharathi, a Division Bench of this Court held that the appointment of the second commissioner and the reports filed by him without setting aside the first commissioner's report is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. The relevant portion of the decision that the first commissioner's report and proceedings should be set aside for reasons to be recorded and then only the court can proceed to appoint another commissioner to do the work is a wholesome rule of law based on public policy,. The proceedings in the Court below could be expedited, without waste of time and money. We are of the view, that only if the Court has reason to be dissatisfied with the proceedings and report of the first commissioner for reasons stated, it can appoint a second commissioner for further inquiry. This is a condition precedent. The provision contained in Order XXVI, R.12. C.P.C. is "vital". Strict adherence alone will facilitate speedier, effective and cheaper administration of justice. Therefore, the appointment of the second Commissioner and the reports filed by him without setting aside the first Commissioner's report is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. 6. In a subsequent decision reported in ( AIR 1993 Ker. 218 (1993 KHC 193 : 1993 (1) KLJ 44 ) Balakrishna Menon and Another v. Padmavathy Amma and Another, a second commission issued when the parties agreed for appointment of the same, after eschewing the first commission report for consideration, the decision in Swami Premanda Bharathi's case (supra) has been distinguished and held that, when both parties to a litigation agree to take out a second commission for obvious reasons the evidentiary value of the first report is automatically detached. In that situation the Court need not pass separate orders setting aside the first Commission report because it is implied when the order for appointment of second commission is passed. What is necessary under sub-rule (3) of R.10 is that the Courts shall be dissatisfied "for any reason" for reasons to be recorded. 7. However, in a subsequent decision reported in ( 2009 (3) KLT 644 ( 2009 (3) KHC 565 : 2009 (2) KLD 490: ILR 2009 (4) Ker. What is necessary under sub-rule (3) of R.10 is that the Courts shall be dissatisfied "for any reason" for reasons to be recorded. 7. However, in a subsequent decision reported in ( 2009 (3) KLT 644 ( 2009 (3) KHC 565 : 2009 (2) KLD 490: ILR 2009 (4) Ker. 298) Joy Cherian v. George Cherian, the following two questions were answered as under: Questions: (i) Whether a fresh Commission can be appointed without setting aside earlier report? (ii) When an earlier report suffers from some deficiency, Court if can direct same Commissioner or appoint a fresh Commissioner without setting aside previous report even by Appellate Court? Answers: Suit for fixation of boundary and perpetual prohibitory injunction. Munsiff dismissed the suit holding that it was not possible to identify the property. In appeal, appellant / plaintiff moved an application for appointing a Commission to identify suit property. Same was allowed and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to measure suit property and identify the properties of the parties. Impeaching correctness of that order, it is contended that it is illegal to appoint a fresh Commission, without setting aside the Commission report and plan already prepared in the trial. High Court held that a second Commission to note details which have been omitted by Commission in his previous report is permissible even without setting aside earlier report and this can be even done by Appellate Court. 8. In Joy Cherian’s case (supra), a Division Bench judgment of this Court in [ 1987 (1) KLT 714 :1987 KHC 211: 1987 KLJ 474 : 1987 KLN SN 17] State v. Kodakkat Pocker and Others is followed. In this case it was held that, an analysis of the question whether the appointment of a Commission without setting aside the previous report is permissible, leads to a proposition that, generally, if the previous report is found unacceptable, then without setting it aside, a fresh Commission cannot be appointed, but, if the earlier report suffered from some deficiency, which could be supplied by further enquiry and it is not vitiated by serious infirmities, the court is competent to pass appropriate orders resorting to O.XXVI R.10(3) of C.P.C. directing the same Commissioner or appointing a fresh Commissioner, without setting aside the previous report to note the details which have been omitted. There cannot be any doubt as to the competency of the appellate court when it is satisfied from the materials produced that the Commission report is unacceptable or it suffers from some deficiency to pass appropriate orders for setting aside that report or directing a further enquiry to note the details, which were omitted in the earlier report. The endeavour of the court should be to arrive at a correct decision in a given case, and that being so, whether or not, any objection is filed, the acceptability of the Commission report has to be examined and appropriate orders have to be issued for appointment of a fresh Commission if the previous report is found unacceptable, and such power can be exercised by the Appellate Court also in appropriate cases. So, essentially, whether it be the Trial Court or the Appellate Court, when any objection is raised to the acceptability of the report, it has to examine whether the report is liable to be set aside on account of serious infirmities or if it has some deficiency, which does not call for setting it aside as a whole but only for a further enquiry to note the details to cure the deficiencies in the previous report. 9. This question was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in Laly Joseph @ Laly Sebastian v. K.U. Francis [ 2023 (3) KHC 678 : 2023 KHC OnLine 288 : 2023 (2) KLT 516 : 2023 (2) KLJ 387 ]. The Division Bench considered the question on the following facts. Facts of the case: This original petition has been placed before the Division Bench of High Court based on a reference order from Single Judge. Reference was necessitated as the learned Single Judge observed that a coordinate Bench of Kerala High Court in Francis Assissi v. Sr. Breesiya and Others, 2017 KHC 15 held that a commission report can only be set aside or varied under sub-rule (2) of R.14 of Order XXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure. This appears to have created a considerable amount of confusion in the District Judiciary in regard to the procedure to be adopted regarding setting aside or remitting the commission report on such application being made before the Court. This appears to have created a considerable amount of confusion in the District Judiciary in regard to the procedure to be adopted regarding setting aside or remitting the commission report on such application being made before the Court. Main issue for consideration was; whether Court has power to set aside or remit the commission report; and the decision in the case of Francis Assissi v. Sr. Breesiya and Others, 2017 KHC 15 is having any binding effect. 10. While answering the question, the Division Bench held as under: The present dilemma has arisen in the matters relating to the appointment of the Commissioner for local investigation. It is true that there is no specific mention about setting aside the report under Order XXVI R.10(3) of the Code, as it only refers to conduct further 'enquiry'. There is no embargo, according to us, for setting aside a commission report if the Court is totally dissatisfied with the commission report. It is also open for the court to remit the commission report for further inquiry, so also to appoint a fresh commission without setting aside the earlier commission report. The court can very well appreciate both reports and decide accordingly at the time of the trial. We find a similar view has been taken by the learned Single Judge in K. L. D. & M. M. Board Ltd. v. Achuthan, 2001 KHC 429 and Joy Cherian v. George Cherian, 2009 (2) KHC 969 . The power given to the court to 'conduct further enquiry' on being 'dissatisfied' with the report can be exercised in such manner as the Court may choose to do so for any cogent reasons. 11. That apart, another Division Bench of this Court, while considering the similar question, in the decision reported in Sreedevi v. State of Kerala [ 2024 (2) KLT 645 ], held in paragraph Nos. 6 and 8 as under: 6. It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Laly Joseph @ Laly Sebastian v. K.U.Francis ( 2023 (2) KLT 516 = 2023 (3) KHC 678 ), after articulating the law on the point on the basis of various decisions of this Court, that if there are cogent reasons, there is absolutely no legal embargo in appointing a fresh commission without setting aside the earlier commission report. Paragraph No.10 of the aforesaid order reads as follows: "10. Paragraph No.10 of the aforesaid order reads as follows: "10. The present dilemma has arisen in the matters relating to the appointment of the Commissioner for local investigation. It is true that there is no specific mention about setting aside the report under Order XXVI R.10(3) of the Code, as it only refers to conduct further 'enquiry'. There is no embargo, according to us, for setting aside a commission report if the Court is totally dissatisfied with the commission report. It is also open for the Court to remit the commission report for further inquiry, so also to appoint a fresh commission without setting aside the earlier commission report. The Court can very well appreciate both reports and decide accordingly at the time of the trial. 12. It is true that as per Order XXVI Rule 10(3), setting aside a commission report is not specifically dealt, thought it is permitted to direct such further enquiry to be made as it shall think fit. In this context, it is relevant to refer Order XXVI Rules 13 and 14 dealing with ‘commission to make partition of immovable property’ and ‘procedure of commission’. The same are as under: 13. Commission to make partition of immovable property.- Where a preliminary decree for partition has been passed, the Court may in any case not provided for by Sec. 54, issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit to make the partition or separation according to the rights as declared in such decree. 14. Procedure of Commissioner.—(1) The Commissioner shall, after such inquiry as may be necessary, divide the property into as many shares as may be directed by the order under which the commission was issued, and shall allot such shares to the parties, and may, if authorised thereto by the said order, award sums to be paid for the purpose of equalizing the value of the shares. (2) The Commissioner shall then prepare and sign a report of the Commissioners (where the commission was issued to more than one person and they cannot agree) shall prepare and sign separate reports appointing the share of each party and distinguishing each share (if so directed by the said order) by metes and bounds. (2) The Commissioner shall then prepare and sign a report of the Commissioners (where the commission was issued to more than one person and they cannot agree) shall prepare and sign separate reports appointing the share of each party and distinguishing each share (if so directed by the said order) by metes and bounds. Such report or reports shall be annexed to the commission and transmitted to the Court; and the Court, after hearing any objection which the parties may make to the report or reports, shall confirm, vary or set aside the same. (3) Where the Court confirms or varies the report or reports it shall pass a decree in accordance with the same as confirmed or varied; but where the Court sets aside the report or reports it shall either issue a new commission or make such other order as it shall think fit. 13. A cursory reading of Rule 14(2) makes it clear that, such report or reports shall be annexed to the commission and transmitted to the Court; and the Court, after hearing any objection which the parties may make to the report or reports, shall confirm, vary or set aside the same. Further, Rule 14(3) makes it clear that, where the Court confirms or varies the report or reports it shall pass a decree in accordance with the same as confirmed or varied; but where the Court sets aside the report or reports it shall either issue a new commission or make such other order as it shall think fit. Although, these specific provisions would directly apply in relation to partition of immovable property and the procedure thereof, the same principles can be borrowed to interpret the term ‘direct such further enquiry’ in Order XXVI Rule 10(3) of Code of Civil Procedure, to achieve the legislative object by applying the rule of purposive interpretation, which advances the remedy and suppresses the mischief as it was envisioned by the legislation, while considering the relief to set aside and remit back the commission report filed by the Commissioner after local investigation or inspection dealt under Order XXVI Rules 9 and 10 r/w 10(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 14. 14. Therefore, the above discussion leads to the conclusion that, when petitions with prayers to set aside and remit back commission reports being considered, the ratio in Swami Premananda Bharathi’s case (supra) is the binding precedent followed in Yudathadevus’s case (supra), Laly Joseph @ Laly Sebastian’s case (supra) and the decision in Sreedevi’s case (supra) declaring the said binding precedent and are the decisions which would hold the field in this regard and contra decisions in Francis Assissi’s case (supra), Gopalakrishnan and Another v. V. Ponnappan and others [ 2021 (5) KHC 548 : 2021 KHC OnLine 640 : 2021 (5) KLT 751 : ILR 2021 (4) Ker. 528 : 2021 (4) KLJ 711 : 2021 Ker 36496] and Shajitha v. Akbar [ 2023 (6) KHC 297 : 2023 KHC OnLine 613 : 2023 KER 56190 : 2023 (5) KLT 503 : ILR 2023 (4) Ker.156 : 2023 (4) KLJ 324 ], have no binding effect, since the same did not lay the correct law and the same should not be followed. Indubitably, the law is no more res integra on the point that a decision or judgment can also be per incuriam if it is not possible to reconcile its ratio with that of a previously pronounced judgment of a co equal or Larger Bench. There can be no scintilla of doubt that an earlier decision of co- equal Bench binds the Bench of same strength. Therefore, the earlier decision by a Larger Bench or a co equal Bench to be followed as the binding precedent by a Bench of co- equal strength later, until the same is overruled by a Larger Bench or by the Apex Court. Therefore, the earlier decision by a Larger Bench or a co equal Bench to be followed as the binding precedent by a Bench of co- equal strength later, until the same is overruled by a Larger Bench or by the Apex Court. The Constitutional Bench decision reported in (2002) 1 SCC 1 : 2002 KHC 231 : 2002 (1) KLT SN 34: AIR 2002 SC 296 ) Pradip Chandra Parija and Others v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik and Others, the decision reported in (2005) 2 SCC 673 (2005 KHC 77 : 2005 (1) KLT 486 : AIR 2005 SC 752 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 246 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 546 : 2005 (116) DLT 81 : 2005 (99) Cut LT 514: 2005 AIR SCW 349: 2010 (254) ELT 196 ) Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Another and in the Constitution Bench decision reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 ( 2017 (5) KHC 350 : 2017 (4) KLT 662 : ILR 2017 (4) Ker. 513: 2017 (4) KLJ 627 : AIR 2017 KLJ 627 : AIR 2017 SC 5157 : 2017 ACJ 2700 ) National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, are on this point. In a latest Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court reported in [2023 KHC 1028], In Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 v.v., it was held that the maintenance of judicial discipline is important for ensuring consistency and certainty in the development of law. The rule of judicial discipline demands that a Bench of lower strength is bound by the decision of a Larger Bench. Judicial discipline also dictates that generally, a Bench of the same strength can question the correctness of a decision rendered by a co-ordinate Bench. In such situation, the matter has to be placed before a Bench of larger strength. Thus, the law to be followed in the matter of setting aside and remittance of commission report is Swami Premananda Bharathi’s case (supra), unless a Larger Bench declares the said ratio as not good law. 15. In such situation, the matter has to be placed before a Bench of larger strength. Thus, the law to be followed in the matter of setting aside and remittance of commission report is Swami Premananda Bharathi’s case (supra), unless a Larger Bench declares the said ratio as not good law. 15. On evaluation of the materials available along with the prayer sought for in the plaint and the contentions raised by the defendants, it appears that though, the commission report need not be set aside and the same shall be remitted back to the commissioner with direction to measure the property with assistance of a surveyor and locate the essentials so as to facilitate disposal of the case, as per law. 16. In the result, this petition stands allowed and Ext.P8 order stands set aside, remitting the commission report to the Commissioner with direction to the trial court to appoint a surveyor and to note out the essentials for the just decision of the case. While inspecting the property after remittance, both parties are at liberty to file petitions before the trial court to ascertain more aspects which are required to be noted and in such event, the trial court shall consider the same and allow the same to the extent which are necessary for the disposal of the case. Holding so, this original petition stands allowed.