ORDER S.R. Nos. 32993 and 32996.-These relate to two memoranda of Civil Revision Petitions purporting to be under Article 227 of the Constitution against the order of a learned Judge of this Court on two interlocutory applications on the original side of this Court in two suits now pending on the original side of this Court having been transferred from the District Court of Ramnad. In Sahaba Reddy v. Venkata Reddy1, to which one of us was a party, it was decided that Article 227 of the Constitution is confined to subordinate Courts and a Judge of the High Court as such is not subordinate to the High Court and a Civil Revision Petition is not competent against an order of a learned Judge of this Court under that Article. This view has been followed by other Division Benches of this Court. The papers in these two S. R. Nos. must be returned to the party as the revision petitions sought to be preferred are not competent. S.R. Nos. 32989 and 32991 of 1956.-These relate to two original side appeals sought to be preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters patent against the same order of the learned Judge. In substance, by this order the learned Judge directed that the fourth defendant in C. S. No. 30 of 1956 shall have liberty to adduce further evidence on the first part of issue 2 and also adduce evidence in and by way of rebuttal on the latter part of issue 2. The learned Judge also observed that the opposite side will be given the fullest opportunity of meeting the evidence adduced by the fourth defendant. We heared Mr. K. Krishnaswami Ayyangar, learned counsel for the plaintiffappellant, at considerable length. He contended that the order was a judgment within the meaning of that word in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. He cited to us and relied upon the decisions of the Calcutta High Court in Koramall Ramballav v. Mongilal Dalimchand1. Lea Badin v. Upendra Mohon Roy Chaudhury2, Chandi v. Jnanendra3, and Mathura Sundari Dasi v. Haran Chandra Saha4. He drew our attention to the leading judgment of this Court in Tuljaram Row v. Alagappa Chettiar5, and to the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Asrumati Debt v. Rupendra Deb Raikot6. Lea Badin v. Upendra Mohon Roy Chaudhury2, Chandi v. Jnanendra3, and Mathura Sundari Dasi v. Haran Chandra Saha4. He drew our attention to the leading judgment of this Court in Tuljaram Row v. Alagappa Chettiar5, and to the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Asrumati Debt v. Rupendra Deb Raikot6. We do not, however, think it necessary to examine each of these cases because we find ourselves in the happy position in which the Supreme Court found itself in Asrumati Debi v. Rupendra Deb Raikot6, and, because we are satisfied that in none of the views referred to in any of these decisions, can an order of the character which is sought to be appealed against be regarded as a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The appeals sought to be preferred are, therefore, not competent. The papers will be returned to the party. V.S. ----- Papers returned.