( 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 Pat