JUDGMENT Maclean, C.J. - This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Brett silting alone, and the appeal is brought under sec. 15 of the Letters Patent, The decision of Mr. Justice Brett was upon an application for review of a case in which sitting with Mr. Justice Pargiter, ho had decided against the then Petitioner. Mr. Justice Pargiter subsequently left the Court and the case was, therefore, properly laid before, and heard by, Mr. Justice Brett, who granted a rule, but upon the hearing of the rule, for the reasons stated in his judgment, he discharged it. It is now sought by the unsuccessful Petitioner in that rule to appeal against that decision of Mr. Justice Brett. A preliminary objection is taken that no such appeal lies inasmuch as Mr. Justice Brett's decision was not a 'judgment' within the meaning of sec. 15 of the Letters Patent. In support of that proposition, it appears that, more than 35 years ago, the precise point was decided by Sir Barnes Peacock, C.J., and two other Judges of this Court, in the case of Rughoobibee v. Noor Jahan Begum 12.W. R.459 (1869) and that case was followed in principle, (although the circumstances were not quite the same) by the decision of Petheram, C.J., and Rampini, J., in the case of Abhoy Churn Mohunt v. Shamont Lochun Mohunt I.L.R.16 cal. 788 (1889). I am bound to say that, if this matter had come before me as res integra, I should have felt great difficulty in holding that such a decision as this was a 'judgment' within the meaning of sec. 15. It is said that this view is inconsistent with the opinion expressed by myself in the case of Toolsimony Dasee v. Sudevi Dutssee 3C. W. N. 847 : s c. I. L. It. 26 I lal. 361 (1899). I do not think that is so. There we were dealing with an order refusing to set aside an award, which dealt with the merits of the case as between the parties, and finally adjudicated upon their rights. That is very different from the order made by Mr. Justice Brett. All that Mr. Justice Brett decided was that no case had been made out for a rehearing; and in the exercise of his judicial discretion, refused the application. That is very different from the order made by Mr. Justice Brett. All that Mr. Justice Brett decided was that no case had been made out for a rehearing; and in the exercise of his judicial discretion, refused the application. The case had already been tried on the merits: the 'judgment' was given on these merits: and that was the judgment which decided the rights of the parties, and that stands good. In these circumstances it would be going too far to hold that this is a 'judgment' within the meaning of the section. Therefore, the preliminary objection must prevail. 2. I may point out, even if an appeal did lie, the almost insuperable difficulty of the Appellate Court in interfering with the order of the Court below. The case has been heard by two Judges : a review has been refused by one of them, who heard the case and was familiar with its details and the arguments and who pronounces that no case has been made out for a review. It would be almost impossible for the Appellate Court to interfere and say that he was wrong. This appeal must be dimissed with costs, five gold mohurs. Holmwood, J. I am of the same opinion.