Decision where appeal heard by two or more Judges
Section 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 deals with decision where appeal heard by two or more Judges. Where an appeal is heard by a Bench of two or more Judges, the appeal shall be decided in accordance with the opinion of such Judges or of the majority (if any) of such Judges. The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1909.
(1) Where an appeal is heard by a Bench of two or more Judges, the appeal shall be decided in accordance with the opinion of such Judges or of the majority (if any) of such Judges.
(2) Where there is no such majority which concurs in a judgment varying or reversing the decree appealed from, such decree shall be confirmed:
Provided that where the Bench hearing the appeal is 1[composed of two or other even number of Judges belonging to a Court consisting of more Judges than those constituting the Bench] and the Judges composing the Bench differ in opinion on a point of law, they may state the point of law upon which they differ and the appeal shall then be heard upon that point only by one or more of the other Judges, and such point shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority (if any) of the Judges who have heard the appeal, including those who first heard it.
2[(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to alter or otherwise affect any provision of the letters to patent of any High Court.]
Section 98, The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act 5 of 1908).
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
P. V. Hemalatha vs Kattamkandi P. Maliackal Saheeda
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where the two Judges of a Division Bench deliver separate judgments differing on issues of fact and identify no point of law for reference, sub-section (2) of Section 98 operates and the decree of the subordinate court stands confirmed; the sub-section has a benevolent purpose of ending litigation where the division is only on facts. Sub-section (3) could not help the petitioner because the Madras Letters Patent did not extend to the territory of the Kerala High Court, and the Supreme Court declined special leave since granting it would defeat the legislative mandate in Section 98(2).
On this section: The judgment sets out and construes all three sub-sections of Section 98 and holds that confirmation of the lower court's decree was the only course open to the Division Bench.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… the Travancore-Cochin High Court Act, Section 23 of which contains a provision which states that if two Judges forming a Division Bench of the High Court disagree, they shall refer their disagreements to the opinion of another Judge and the opinion of the majority will then prevail, was said to be general as against Section 98(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure which was said to be special. It may be stated that Section 98(2) in dealing with appeals to a superior court generally, has a reference to a third or more Judges in the event of disagreement between two Judges only on a point of law. If the disagreement exists on a point of fact, …
-
… the Travancore-Cochin High Court Act, Section 23 of which contains a provision which states that if two Judges forming a Division Bench of the High Court disagree, they shall refer their disagreements to the opinion of another Judge and the opinion of the majority will then prevail, was said to be general as against Section 98(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure which was said to be special. It may be stated that Section 98(2) in dealing with appeals to a superior court generally, has a reference to a third or more Judges in the event of disagreement between two Judges only on a point of law. If the disagreement exists on a point of fact, …
Questions about Section 98
What have the courts held on Section 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
P. V. Hemalatha vs Kattamkandi P. Maliackal Saheeda is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: The judgment sets out and construes all three sub-sections of Section 98 and holds that confirmation of the lower court's decree was the only course open to the Division Bench.
How do I find court cases under Section 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CPC 98, section 98 CPC, section 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure. People searching for it also type cpc 98 paragrafo 3 and cpc 98 e 99. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 1 reported judgment on this section is set out on this page, beginning with P. V. Hemalatha vs Kattamkandi P. Maliackal Saheeda.
When did Section 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure come into force?
Section 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure, cited as CPC 98, came into force on 01 Jan 1909, having been enacted on 21 Mar 1908. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 115. Revision2475 words
- 60. Property liable to attachment and sale in execution of decree1869 words
- 2. Definitions890 words
- 9. Courts to try all civil suits unless barred714 words
- 42. Powers of Court in executing transferred decree653 words
- 92. Public charities610 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.