M. JAGANNADHA RAO, UPENDRALAL WAGHRAY, JJ.

( 1 ) THIS reference to the Full Bench has been made by Jeevan Reddi, J. (as he then was) and Syed Shah Mohd. Quadri, J. doubting the correctness of an earlier Full Bench decision in Sattemma vs. Vishnumurthy 1 in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Shah Babulal Khimji vs. Jaber2. I he question is whether a Letters Patent Appeal lies to a Division Bench under clause 15 of the Letters Patent (Madras) as applicable to Andhra Pradesh high Court, against an order of a learned single Judge refusing to review under O. 47 R. 4 (1), CPC and whether O. 47, R. 7 (1) is a bar to the maintainability of such an appeal. The Division Bench thought that what the supreme Court, they thought, stated in the above case in the context of the bar created in S. 104 (2) C. P. C. to the maintainability of Letters Patent appeals, equally applied to a similar bar created in Order 47, Rule 7 (1), c. P. C. They also thought that the Full Bench in Sattemma s case (1 supra) had wrongly quoted what the Supreme Court had actually decided in another case in Union of India vs. Mohinder Supply Co. 3. The Division Bench further observed that the decision rendered in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document