Anantanarayanan, C.J.:-

The issue that has been referred to this Full Bench can be very simply stated: It is, whether an order granting leave to sue in forma pauperis by a single Judge of the High Court, is a ‘judgment’ within the meaning of clause 15 of the Letters Patent? Even in this restricted form the issue involves a conflict of the case-law in this Court. In M. R. Ananthanarayana Iyer v. Rarichan1, a Division Bench of Beasley, C.J., and Stodart, J. held that an order of a single Judge of the High Court excusing the delay in the filing of a pauper appeal and admitting the appeal, is not a ‘judgment’ which can be the subject of an appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent. In P. Baba Sah v. V. M Purushothama Sah2, Spencer, O.C.J., and Srinivasa Ayyangar, J., held that an order of a single Judge of the High Court granting permission to the plaintiff to sue in forma pauperis amounts to a ‘judgment’ within the meaning of clause 15 of the Letters Patent. In M/s. Cork Industries v. A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar3 , Ramachandra Iyer, C.J., and Ramakrishnan, J., referred to this conflict, and after a reference to Asrumati Debi v. Kumar Rupendra Deb Raikot4, pointed out that there was a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document