Difference of opinion

When difference of opinion arises between the two Judges and the case is referred to third Judge — Who is unable to hear the case — Then if a new Judge is appointed for hearing the case — Then the first proviso of S. 42(13)(C) shall be redundant and there seems to be no purpose and object of this provision of law. Azad Govt. v. Mujahid Hussain Naqvi & another 2009 SCR 447 (H)
In case the Judges are equally divided and third Judge is unable to hear the case — The judgment of the High Court shall be the judgment of the Supreme Court. Azad Government & 3 others v. Mujahid Hussain Naqvi & another 2009 SCR 447 (I)
Contention that at the time of difference of opinion between two Judges the other Judge was available and able for hearing the case, but an application was moved by the applicant, upon which he declined to hear the case, thus, he was not unable to hear the case, is without any substance — Held: If the learned Chief Justice was of the view that he was not unable to hear the case, then he should have heard the case — But he stated that the “present Judges” in which he was also included, were unable to hear the case and the Government may be moved to appointment an ad hoc Judge for hearing and disposal of “present appeal” — Held further: The judgment of High Court shall be deemed to be the judgment of Supreme Court w.e.f. 1.8.2001, when the learned Chief Justice stated that all the “present Judges” were unable to hear the case. Azad Government & 3 others v. Mujahid Hussain Naqvi & another 2009 SCR 447 (J)