Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.—

This is an appeal from the judgment of 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 Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has got to be considered, before we can take up the merits of the appeal. In Anantanayar v. Raghavar1, it was held that an order of a single Judge admitting a pauper appeal after excusing the delay in its presentation was not a judgment as that enabled the appeal to go on. In Baba Sah v. Purushotham Sah2, 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. Rupendra Deb Ranikot1, 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 Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. They are: (1) Whether the order or judgment of the single Judge terminates the suit or proceeding, an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document