Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.-This is an appeal against the refusal of leave to file a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of a single Judge in second appeal. The appellant was the respondent in C.M.S.A. No. 31 of 1946, which was heard by Satyanarayana Rao, J. The appeal was allowed and on the motion of the counsel who appeared for the appellant herein for leave to file a Letters Patent Appeal against his judgment leave was refused. As against the refusal this appeal is now filed. Notice of this appeal was ordered to the respondent and to the President of the Madras Advocates’ Association probably, for the reason that this involves a matter of interest to the legal profession and the litigant public. An objection is taken that no appeal lies against the refusal of leave by the second appellate Judge. The learned counsel for the appellant argues that he is entitled to file an appeal as this is an appeal against the judgment of a single Judge under clause 15 of the Letters Patent and the order refusing leave is not part of the judgment itself in second appeal and is independent of it and that therefore the appeal lies. It is an accepted principle of law and also laid down by