( 1 ) ON 16-1-61, Srinivasachari, J. pronounced Judgment in S. A. No. 209 of 1957 dismissing the appeal with costs. In that judgment, the learned Judge stated in the end "no leave" which obviously means that he refused leave to the appellants-plaintiffs to file a Letters Patent Appeal against that decision. The two appellants filed S. R. No. 5072 of 1961 praying for review of that order of Srinivasachari, J. so far as that portion of the judgment "no leave" is concerned. The office raised an objection saying that no review lay against "no leave" in a judgment of the Court; thereupon, this matter was heard by me. 2. The questions that arise for consideration are:-- (1) Whether a review lies in law against an order of "no leave" by which leave was refused for filing a Letters Patent Appeal?

( 2 ) IF review lies, whether the order of "no leave" by Srinivasachari in S. A. No. 209 of 1957 dated 16-1-1961 has to be reviewed? POINT NO. I :- The contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioners is that the order which is sought to be reviewed namely, refusing of leave to file a Letters Patent Appeal is not part of the main judgment, that it is a separate order under the Lette