W. Comer Petheram, C.J.
1. We think that in this case there is no appeal from this order, and that this appeal, consequently, must be dismissed.
2. The law is correctly laid down in the judgment of the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Markby which is to be found in The Justices of the Peace for Calcutta v. Oriental Gas Company 8 B.L.R. 433 (452). The Chief Justice there says (p. 452 of the report): 'We think that 'judgment' in Clause 15 means a decision which affects the merits of the question between the parties by determining some right or liability, It may be either final, or preliminary or interlocutory, the difference between them being that a final judgment determines the whole cause or suit, and a preliminary or interlocutory judgment determines only a part of it, leaving other matters to be determined.'
3. That being the law, the question is, whether a refusal to exercise the discretion given by Section 608 to a Judge or Bench of this Court to order security for costs is a decision which affects the merits of any question between the parties by determining some right or liability. In our opinion such a refusal affects no right or liability by determining any question which affects the merits of the dispute between the parties in any sense. For these reasons we think that no appeal has to this Court under Section 15 of the Letters Patent, and this appeal must be dismissed with costs.