(1.) The appellants seek to prefer an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal against the order passed by a learned single judge refusing to review the final order passed in a revision preferred to this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The registry has raised an objection stating that inasmuch as a Letters Petent Appeal is not maintainable against the main order passed in the civil revision petition the appellants cannot maintain a Letters Patent Appeal against the order refusing to review the said order. The appellant's counsel then requested that the matter may be placed before the Court for appropriate orders. Therefore the matter has been posted before us.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that an order refusing to review the judgment is a 'judgment' within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal as held by the Supreme Court in State of U P Vs. Vijayanand (1) AIR 1963 SC 946. He also submits that the power of review is an independent power and is in no way concerned with the power of revision and that therefore even if a Letters Patent Appeal does not lie against an order in the main civil revision petition a Letters Patent Appeal lies against an order refusing to review the order ia the civil revision petition.
(3.) We are unable to agree with the submissions of the learned counsel that a Letters Patent Appeal lies against an order refusing to review the judgment The decisions of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court have been considered in great detail in a recent decision of the Full Bench of this Court in M Srinivas Vs. Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Hyderabad (2) 1990 (3) ALT 3 (Short Notes) There can be no doubt that a Letters Patent Appeal lies against an order refusing to review the judgment. But the question that still arises is whether the said principle can be applied in respect of orders passed in revision applications against which there is no Letters Patent Appeal.