The word "immediately" in Rule 10 of Chapter IV of the High Court Rules should be reasonably construed so as not to require from the applicant something which is impossible.

( 1 ) IN this Letters Patent appeal with leave from a decision of Bhutt, J. (as he then was) in Second Appeal No. 764 of 1953, a preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Advocate General appearing for the opponent-State as to the competency of this appeal. Relying on the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in letters Patent Appeal No. 106 of 1958, (State of Madhya Pradesh v. Patel gayaprasad), the urged that the appeal was Incompetent under Clause 10 of the letters Patent as the application for leave was not made immediately after the judgment was pronounced on 31st January 1957 as required by the rules made by this Court under Clause 27 of the Letters Patent; that the application for leave was filed on 6th February 1957; and that in these circumstances the learned Single judge was not justified in granting leave to appeal.

( 2 ) THE reply of Mr. Dabir, learned counsel for the appellants, was that the judgment in Second Appeal No. 764 of 1953 was pronounced on a date of which no intimation had been given to the appellants' counsel; that the draft judgment was also not laid on the table as required by Rule 10 Chapter 4 of the High Court rules; that the application for leave was filed immediately after the appellants came to know of the delivery of judgment; and that it was not open to a Bench hearing a Letters Patent appeal filed with leave to question the legality or propriety of the grant of leave by the Single Judge. In regard to the Full Bench decision relied on by the learned Advocate General, it was urged by Shri Dabir, learned counsel for the appellants, that the view expressed in that case on the question of competency of a Letters Patent appeal filed with leave required reconsideration.

( 3 ) THE preliminary objection taken by the learned Advocate General raises two questions, namely, (i) the interpretation of the word "immediately" occurring in rule 10 (Chapter 4) of the High Court Rules; and (ii) whether the discretionary power of the Single Judge to grant leave to appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters patent is subject to review by the Bench hearing the appeal. There are numerous decisions of this Court in which the meaning of the expression "immediately after the judgment is delivered" has been considered. It is unnecessary in this order of reference to go into a detailed discussion of the cases on the subject. A full examination of it is to be found in the judgment of Rao, J. in Sakharam v. Laxman, Misc. Civil Case No. 60 of 1955, D/- 7-4-1955 (Nag), which was relied, on by the Full Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 106 of 1958. In that case, the learned Judge observed that the word 'immediately' implies that there is a more stringent requisition than what is ordinarily implied in the word 'reasonable' and that it must receive a reasonable interpretation, so far that it cannot be considered as imposing an obligation to do what is impossible. In Sakha-ram's Case (Misc. Civil Case No. 60 of 1955, D/-7-4-1955 (Nag)-- (supra), the judgment was posted for delivery on 21st February 1955 and the counsel seeking leave to appeal was aware of the date. The application for leave was filed on 24th February 1955, and did not disclose the grounds on which the leave was sought. It was in these circumstances that Rao, J. refused leave to appeal. As we read the decision of rao, J. , it appears to us that thelearned Judge laid down that "immediately" implied that the act should be done with all convenient speed having due regard to the nature and circumstances of the case. The decision of Rao, J. is not an authority for the proposition that a Bench hearing a Letters Patent appeal filed With leave is entitled to review the decision of the single Judge granting leave to appeal. We would have decided the preliminary objection on this reading of the decision of Rao, J. But two of the learned Judges hearing Letters Patent Anneal No. 108 of 1958, relying on the decision in sakharam's Case, Misc. Civil Case No