Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Pragathi Enterprises And Anr. vs Sri Balaji Trading Company Rep. By Its ... on 11 June, 1989
Equivalent citations: 1991(2)ALT462
ORDER Jagannadha Rao, J.
1. The appellants seek to prefer an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed by a learned single judge refusing to review the final order passed in a revision preferred to this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The registry has raised an objection stating that inasmuch as a Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable against the main order passed in the civil revision petition, the appellants cannot maintain a Letters Patent Appeal against the order refusing to review the said order. The appellants' counsel then requested that the matter may be placed before the Court for appropriate orders. Therefore the matter has been posted before us.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that an order refusing to review the judgment is a 'judgment' within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent as held by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Vijay Anand, He also submits that the power of review is an independent power and is in (SIC) way concerned with the power of revision and that therefore even if a L(SIC)ters Patent Appeal does not lie against an order in the main civil revision petition, a Letters Patent Appeal lies against an order refusing to review the order in the civil revision petition.
3. We are unable to agree with the submissions of the learned counsel that a Letters Patent Appeal lies against an order refusing to review the judgment. The decisions of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court have been considered in great detail in a recent decision of the Fail Bench of this Court in M. Srinivas v. Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad, (1990 (3) ALT 3 (SN)) There can be no doubt that a Letters Patent Appeal lies against an order refusing to review the judgment. But the question that still arises is whether the said principle can be applied in respect of orders passed in revision applications against which there is no Letters Patent Appeal.
4. It is true that Clause 15 of the Letters Patent specifically states that a Letters Patent Appeal does not lie against an order passed in revision but does not specifically refer to an order passed in a review application. But that, in our opinion, makes no difference if the fundamental principles are kept in mind. It is one of the basic principles of law that if an appeal does not lie against the main judgment, an appeal will not equally lie against any order which arises out of the said judgment--whether such an order is interlocutory in nature or such an order is one passed in review of the same judgment. It is true that the power of review is an independent power and is not the same as the power of revision. But, even so, the review here is in respect of an order passed in revision. For example, if an order is passed in a writ petition or in a first appeal, against which a Letters Patent Appeal lies to a Division Bench under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, then there can be no doubt in accepting the Letters Patent Appeal also lies against the order refusing to review the said order passed in the writ petition or in the first appeal. But the said principle cannot be extended to cases of Revisions or for that matter, even to Second Appeals. If the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is to be accepted, it will become easy for a litigant to circumvent the statute by merely filing a review application in a Second Appeal or in a Revision and get the same dismissed and then file Letters Patent Appeal contending that the order passed in review is an independent order amenable for further appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters patent.
5. We, therefore, uphold the objection raised by the Office and hold that a Letters Patent Appeal does not lie against an order refusing to review the judgment in a Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The office objection that the appeal is not maintainable is up-held.