( 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 ap