S. RAMACHANDRA IYER, C. J. :- This is an appeal from the judgment to Srinivasan, J. who confirmed the order of the Master granting the respondent leave to sue in forma pauperis. A preliminary question as to the maintainability of the appeal under Cl. 15 of the Letters Patent has got to be considered, before we can take up the merits of the appeal. In Ananthanarayana v. Rarichan, ILR 59 Mad 656 : (AIR 1936 Mad 387) it was held that an order of a single Judge admitting a pauper appeal after excusing the delay in the presentation was not a judgment as that enabled the appeal to go on. In Baba Sah v. Purushotham Sah, 47 Mad LJ 932 : (AIR 1925 Mad 167), a Bench of this Court held that an appeal would lie against the order of a single Judge on the Original Side granting permission to the plaintiff to sue in forma pauperis. That judgment, in our opinion, is inconsistent with the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Asrumati Debi v. Rupendradeb Raikot, 1953 SCJ 300 : 1953 SCR 1159 : (AIR 1953 SC 198), where two tests have been laid by their Lordships of the Supreme Court to find out whether an adjudication in a particular proceeding will amount to a judgment within the meaning of