KONDIREDDI BULLIRAJU ALIAS ACHAYAMMA Vs. KONDIREDDI SATYANARAYANAMURTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under Section 15 of the amended Letters Patent, an appeal would lie from the decision of a single Judge of the High Court passed in a second appeal, where the Judge who passed the judgment declares that the case is a fit one for appeal. In Ramanayya V/s. Kotayya a Bench of this Court held that no appeal lay from the refusal of such leave by the Judge.

(2.) The question has been raised before me as to the grounds on which leave to appeal should be granted or refused in such cases. The section only enacts that the Judge concerned should "declare" that the case is a fit one for appeal. The principles that should guide him in dealing with such applications are not specified in the section.

(3.) It was argued that if there was any question of law, leave must be granted. It was further argued that, if a second appeal was allowed, and the decision of the Lower Appellate Court reversed or modified, leave must be given since the single. Judge had no jurisdiction to interfere with the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court in a second appeal except on a question of law, and his interference with the Lower Appellate Court's decision was proof positive that there was a question of law.