This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bihar (hereinafter referred to as “the Commissioner”) against the order dated 13th June 2011 made by the learned single Judge pending the above CWJC No. 9402 of 2011.

2. With the consent of the learned Advocates, the Appeal is heard and decided today.

3. Learned counsel Mr. Shashi Anugrah Narain has appeared for the respondent

M/s Sulabh International Social Service Organization, the writ petitioner. He has raised a preliminary objection against the maintainability of the present Appeal. He has submitted that against the impugned order dated 13th June 2011, the Commissioner has filed Interlocutory Application No. 5576 of 2011 for vacation of the interim relief. Pending the said application, the present Appeal has been preferred without disclosing the factum of the said application. He has also submitted that the factum of the present Appeal is not disclosed in the aforesaid Interlocutory Application No. 5576 of 2011. The appellant is, therefore, guilty of suppressio veri. The Appeal requires to be dismissed on that ground alone. He has next submitted that the impugned order is made pending the writ petition. The said order does not decide upon the rights of the parties. It is, therefore, not a ‘judgment’. The Appeal is, therefore, not maintainable. In support thereof he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Chunilal Nanda & Ors. [(2006) 5 SCC 399].

4. Learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Lalit Kishore has also appeared for the writ petitioner. He has submitted that in the event the impugned order has been set aside it would amount to dismissal of the writ petition at the admission stage. The said order, therefore, requires to be upheld.

5. We see no substance in any of the preliminary objections raised before us. We have noticed that the above referred Interlocutory Application No. 5576 of 2011 was filed after filing of the present Appeal. The question of suppression of the factum of the said application does not arise. In any view of the matter, the appellant does not stand to gain by not disclosing that fact. Therefore also, the Appeal need not be dismissed on the ground of suppressio veri.

6. In the aforesaid matter of Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd., the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the maintainability of an appeal under the relevant Letters Patent which enables an appeal from the judgment of a single Judge in exercise of original jurisdiction to a Division Bench. The Hon’ble Court held that the word ‘Judgement’ has a concept of finality in a broader and not a narrower sense. The Court held–

“A judgment can be of three kinds:

(1) A Final judgment.- * * *

(2) A preliminary judgment.- * * *

(3) Intermediary or interlocutory judgment.- Most of the interlocutory orders which contain the quality of finality are clearly specified in clauses (a) to (w) of Order 43 Rule 1 and have already been held by us to be judgments within the meaning of the Letters Patent and, therefore, appealable. There may also be interlocutory orders which are not covered by Order 43 Rule 1 but which also possess the characteristics and trappings of finality in that, the orders may adversely affect a valuable right of the party or decide an important aspect of the trial in an ancillary proceeding. Before such an order can be a judgment the adverse effect on the party concerned must be direct and immediate rather than indirect or remote. (SCC pp. 55-56, para 113) …. in other words every interlocutory order cannot be regarded as a judgment but only those orders would be judgments which decide matters of moment or affect vital and valuable rights of the parties and which work serious injustice to the party concerned. (SCC p. 57, para 115) ….. any discretion exercised or routine orders passed by the trial Judge in the course of the suit which may cause some inconv