Order This arises out of a reference made by the Master as regards the correct fee payable on the appeal. The appellant applied for leave to institute the suit in forma pauperis in Application No.756 of 1954, which came up before the Master, who rejected the application and refusing him permission to sue as pauper, by his order, dated 10th September, 1954- As against the order dismissing his application an appeal was preferred to the Judge sitting in Chambers, Application No.4431 of 1954, which likewise was dismissed on nth November, 1954. The order of the Master was passed under Order 33, rule 7, Civil Procedure Code, after taking evidence and hearing arguments. As against the order of dismissal of the appeal before the learned Judge, this O.S.A. is preferred with a Court-fee of Rs.2 on the memorandum of appeal. The appeal was returned for payment of proper Court-fee. The contention of the appellant is that though the order of the Master was appealed against, the proceeding before the learned Judge is virtually not an appeal, but only an application, as the proceeding is only a Judge’s summons and the order of the learned Judge dismissing the Judge’s summons seeking to set aside the order of the Master could only be considered to be an order which would be appealable under the Civil Procedure Code and a Court-fee of Rs.2 only is payable under item 45(1) of the High Court-fees rules. Item 45 is as follows: “Memorandum of appeal from an order other than an order under the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938: (1) Where the order appealed from would be appealable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, if it had been passed by a subordinate Court ... Rs. 2. (2) In any other case. ... Rs. 100.” The obvious fallacy in the contention of the learned counsel is that he assumes that the Judge’s summons taken out to set aside the order of the Master is not an appeal. An order passed under Order 33, rule 7, Civil Procedure Code, is appealable under Order 43, rule 1(nn), which provides that “an order under rule 5 or rule 7 of Order 33, Civil Procedure Code, rejecting an application for permission to sue as pauper on the ground specified in clause (d) or (d-1) of rule 5 aforesaid” is appealable. An order passed under Order 33, rule 7, Civil Procedure Code, is appealable under Order 43, rule 1(nn), which provides that “an order under rule 5 or rule 7 of Order 33, Civil Procedure Code, rejecting an application for permission to sue as pauper on the ground specified in clause (d) or (d-1) of rule 5 aforesaid” is appealable. The order having been passed by the Master under Order 33, rule 7 and being appealable, an appeal was filed before the learned Judge which, under the Original Side Rules, has to be in the form of a Judge’s summons. The mere fact that the Original Side Rules provide the form of the appeal to be by way of Judge’s summons would not deprive the character of the proceedings before the Judge, being a proceeding to set aside the order of the Master, which right to set aside the order is by way of an appeal provided for under Order 43, rule 1(nn), of the Cede. The present Original Side Appeal is not against an order passed rejecting the application for leave to sue in forma pauperis under Order 33, rule 7, but is against an order passed by the Judge sitting in Chambers on the Original Side of the High Court in appeal, and an appeal against such an order is provided for under clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The order of the learned Judge is therefore not an order passed under Order 33, rule 7, but an order passed in appeal. Item 45 of the High Court-fees Rules provides for the payment of Court-fee of Rs.2 only when the order appealed from would be appealable under the Civil Procedure Code if it had been passed by a subordinate Court. It is needless to point out that a Judge of this Court sitting in Chambers is not subordinate to the High Court notwithstanding that an appeal is provided against the order or judgment of a single Judge of the High Court to a Bench of the same High Court. In any view, Item 45(1) of the High Court-fees Rules would not apply to the present case and the proper Court-fee is that provided under item 45(2), namely, Rs.100. R.M. ----- Order accordingly.