BALU HARSHET SHETYE Vs. SHRIKISHNA GOVIND KULKARNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common point involved in these two appeals A is whether they can be admitted, or not. No. 70 of 1929 arises from Appeal No. 384 of 1924 from an appellate decree and was decided by Madgavkar J. on the merits, who dismissed it. No. 85 of 1929 is similarly from Appeal No. 29 of 1928 from an appellate decree, and was also decided on the merits by the same Judge, who allowed it. The learned Judge has, in each of those cases, refused to give leave for an appeal under the Letters Patent.

(2.) Two points have been taken by Mr. Thakor for the appellants, one being that leave was not necessary in these cases; and the second, that an appeal lies from the learned Judge's order refusing leave to appeal under the Letters Patent.

(3.) There are three reported cases on the point. The first is a decision of this Court reported in Badruddin V/s. Sitaram , and made on April 2, 1928. This case was decided by Fawcett and Mirza JJ. after the first amendment of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent on December 9, 1927, coming into effect on February 2, 1928. The view taken1 by these learned Judges was that the amendment had retrospective effect. Two other High Courts, however, took a different view.