Chandra Reddy, C.J.
1. This raises the question whether a Letters Patent Appeal could be filed against the judgment of a Single Judge of this Court allowing an appeal brought by the respondents against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Kakinada, remanding a suit brought by the appellants to the trial Court for disposal on merits.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants urges that an appeal is competent for the reason that the impugned judgment was passed in a civil miscellaneous appeal and as such it falls within the purview of Clause 15 of the Utters Patent and that it falls outside Nagamma v. Venkattasubbiah, (1959) 2 Andh WR 554. We do not think that we can give effect to this contention. Notwithstanding the fact that the appeal presented by the respondents was described as a civil miscellaneous appeal, it was a second appeal in that it was preferred against the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court passed in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Consequently, despite the nomenclature of the appeal as a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, it does not cease to be a second appeal. Hence, without the leave of the Judge who has given the judgment now impeached before us, a fetters patent appeal is not competent.
3. We, therefore, hold that the appeal as presented cannot be entertained. However, this does not preclude the appellants from filing a letters patent appeal, if they could validly obtain the leave of the Judge concerned.