SATTEMMA Vs. VISHNU MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question to be answered by the Full Bench relates to the maintainability of an appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against an order of a single Judge of this Court refusing to review an order passed by him earlier dismissing the petition for leave to prefer an appeal in forma pauperis.

(2.) This reference has been necessitated by the judgment of the Madras High Court in Chinnadorai v. Doraisundaram 1954-1 Mad LJ 100: (AIR 1954 Mad 642) which, in its turn, followed the principle enunciated by Muttuswami Ayyar and Parker JJ. in Achaya v. Ratnavel, 1LR 9 Mad 253.

(3.) The point to be considered by us is whether the rule stated in 1954-1 Mad LJ 100: (AIR 1954 Mad 642) represents the correct law. The principle enunciated in that ruling is that no appeal lies against an order of a single Judge dismissing a petition for review having regard to the provisions of Order 47, Rule 7 C. P. C. and that this provision of law prevails over Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Undeniably, Order 47, Rule 7 C. P. C. postulates that an order rejecting an application for review is not appealable. So, if Order 47, Rule 7 C. P. C. controls Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an appeal does not lie notwithstanding that the decision complained against is a "judgment" within the scope and ambit of Clause 15. What calls for decision is whether Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is subservient to Order 47, Rule 7 C. P. C.