Clause 15 of the Letters Patent prevails over Order 47, Rule 7 C. P. C. and a decision refusing to review an order is a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

( 1 ) THE question to be answered by the Full Bench relates to the maintainability of an appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against an order of a single Judge of this Court refusing to review an order passed by him earlier dismissing the petition for leave to prefer an appeal in forma pauperis.

( 2 ) THIS reference has been necessitated by the judgment of the Madras High Court in Chinnadorai v. Doraisundaram 1954-1 Mad LJ 100: (AIR 1954 Mad 642) which, in its turn, followed the principle enunciated by Muttuswami Ayyar and Parker JJ. in Achaya v. Ratnavel, 1lr 9 Mad 253.

( 3 ) THE point to be considered by us is whether the rule stated in 1954-1 Mad LJ 100: (AIR 1954 Mad 642) represents the correct law. The principle enunciated in that ruling is that no appeal lies against an order of a single Judge dismissing a petition for review having regard to the provisions of Order 47, Rule 7 C. P. C. and that this provision of law prevails over Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Undeniably, Order 47, Rule 7 C. P. C. postulates that an order rejecting an application for review is not appealable. So, if Order 47, Rule 7 C. P. C. controls Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an appeal does not lie notwithstanding that the decision complained against is a "judgment" within the scope and ambit of Clause 15. What calls for decision is whether Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is subservient to Order 47, Rule 7 C. P. C.

( 4 ) CLAUSE 15 of the Letters Patent reads as follows:"appeal from Courts of original jurisdiction to the High Courts in its appellate jurisdiction: -- And we do further ordain that an appeal shall lie to the said High Court of Judicature at Madras from the judgment (not being a 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 said High Court, and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, and not being a sentence or order passed or made in the exercise of the power of superintendence under the provisions of Section 107 of the Government of India Act, or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction) of one Judge of the said High Court or one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section108 of Government of India Act, and that notwithstanding anything hereinbefore provided an appeal shall lie to the said High Court from a judgment of one Judge of the said High Court or one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 108 of the Government of India Act, made (on or after the 1st day of February 1929) 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 said High Court, where the Judge who passed the judgment declares that the case is a fit one for appeal; but that the right of appeal from other judgments of Judges of the said High Court or of such Division Court shall be to us, Our heirs or Successors in Our or Their privy Council, as hereinafter provided. "

( 5 ) WE are clear in our minds that Order 47, Rule 7 C. P. C. does not override Clause 15 of the Letters Patent; on the other hand Clause 15 prevails over Order 47, Rule 7 C. P. C.

( 6 ) THIS opinion of ours gains support from the pronouncement of the Privy Council in Hurrish Chunder v. Kali Sundari, 10 Ind App 4 (PC ). In discussing the question whether an appeal was competent against the judgment of a single Judge, their Lordships of the Judicial Committee observed:"it only remains to observe that their Lordships do not think that Section588 of Act X of 1877, which has the effect of restricting certain appeals, applies in such a case as this, where the appeal is from one of the Judges of the Court to the full Court. "section 588 of Act X of 1877 is the ancestor of the present Order 43, Rule 1 C. P. C. It is true that their Lordships did not specifically refer to Clause 15 of