this aspect, one of which was rendered by a three Judges Bench in “ Vinod Kumar Chowdhary vs. Narain Devi Taneja”, 1980 SC 2012 and the other one was rendered in the year 1997 by a two Judges Bencjh in “Major D.N. Sood v. Shanti Devi” ; 1997 (10) SCC 428 , a Division Bench of this Court in “ R.S.Bakshi vs H.K.Malhari & anr.”, 2002(62) DRJ 272 has concluded that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maj. D.N. Sood’s case was per incuriam since the earlier three Judges Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar Choudhary’s case (supra) had not been brought to the notice of the two Judges Bench which had heard Maj. D.N.Sood’s case. That decision of the Division Bench was, as noticed already, later on has been followed by a Single Judge Bench of this Court in the case of “Sanjay Mehra & Ors. Vs. Sunil Malhotra & Anr.”, 2010 (117) DRJ 654 . Learned counsel for the respondent had submitted that the Division Bench of this Court could not have held the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Major D.N.Sood’s case(supra) to be per incuriam in view of the judgments of this Court reported as “Indian Council of Agricultural Research & Anr. Vs. Bidesh Singh & Ors.”, 144 (2007) DLT 81; “Colgate Palmolive Co. Limited & Anr. Vs. Mr. Patel & Another”, 2006 II AD (Delhi) 89 and “Common Cause (A Regd. Society) vs. Union of India and others”, AIR 2001 Delhi 93, in which some judgments of the Supreme Court were also relied upon by different Benches of this Court. But in my view, I need not go into this proposition in view of the fact that a Division Bench of this Court, as noticed already, has already considered this very controversy regarding the maintainability
