LAWS(APH)-1989-6-33

T PRAGATHI ENTERPRISES Vs. BALAJI TRADING CO

Decided On June 11, 1989
PRAGATHI ENTERPRISES. Appellant
V/S
BALAJI TRADING COMPANY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants seek to prefer an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent 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 Patent 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 appellants' 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 as held by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. vs. Vijay Anandi 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 in 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. There can be no doubt that a Letters Patent Appeal lies against an order refusing to review the judg ment. 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.