ANUMANCHI RAMANAYYA Vs. THUBATI KOTAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal purporting to have l?een preferred under Section 15 of the Letters Patent against the refusal by a learned Judge of this Court of leave to appeal from the judgment passed by him in a Second Appeal.

(2.) A preliminary objection is taken by Mr. Venkataramana Rao, the learned Advocate who appeared for the respondent, that no appeal lies from such orders of refusal of leave to appeal.

(3.) Clause (1.5) of the Letters Patent of this High Court was recently amended on 3rd November, 1927 and on 12 December, 1928. The effect of these amendments is to declare that no appeal shall lie to the High Court from the judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the High Court (and not being an order made in the exercise of a revisional jurisdiction or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction) of one Judge of the High Court, or of one Judge of any Division Court pursuant to Section 108 of the Government of India Act, made on or after 1 February, 1929, unless the judge who passed the judgment declares that the case is a fit one for appeal. The second appeal in question was heard by the learned Judge after 1 February, 1929, and the learned Judge when moved by the present appellant has declined to grant leave to appeal under Clause (15) of the Letters Patent. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the said refusal by the learned Judge to grant leave to appeal. The question is whether this appeal is maintainable.