R. M. LODHA, J. : - Heard Mr. S. T. Tilokchandani, the counsel for the appellants.

2. This Appeal is directed against the order dated 12th of June, 2006, whereby the learned single Judge issued notice to the present appellants (defendant Nos. 10 to 15), under Order 21, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure to show cause why the consent decree passed on 3rd of December, 1991 be not executed against them.

3. In our considered view, the impugned order is not a judgment under clause 15 of the Letters Patent and, therefore, the Appeal against the said order is not maintainable. The impugned order is neither interlocutory nor intermediary judgment as categorized by the Supreme Court in the case of Shah Babulal Khimji vs. Jayaben D. Kania, AIR 1981 SC 1786. It does not possess the characteristics and trapping of finality inasmuch as it decides nothing and is only initiatory, asking the present appellants to show cause why the consent decree be not executed against them.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants however, relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Laxman Bala Surve vs. M/s Posh Builders, Bombay, 1996(2) Mh.L.J. 858, in support of his con