Joseph, J.

Common questions arise in these Appeals and they are disposed of by a common Judgment. In both these cases, the tribunal constituted under the Kerala Forest (vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), has passed interlocutory orders. In MFA.No. 125/09, the tribunal has granted temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner/appellants over the petition schedule property till the disposal of the Original Application. But, it was ordered that the rocky portion of the petition schedule property in Survey No.428/J5 shall not be quarried for stone. It was also ordered that the appellants shall not do any act altering the nature and character of the petition schedule property lying in the aforesaid Survey Number and they shall not cut and remove trees therefrom and grow plants or crops therein till the disposal of the Original Application. In MFA.No.119/09, the following is the interim order passed:

"In the result, this application is allowed granting temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the collection of latex from the rubber trees standing in the petition schedule properties by the petitioners. However, it is made clear that the petitioners shall not do any act in the petition schedule properties altering the nature and character thereof and they shall not grow plants or crops in the petition schedule properties and cut and remove trees therefrom till the disposal of the Original Application."

The appellants are aggrieved by the portion of the order by which it is made clear that they shall not do any act in the petition schedule properties altering the nature and character thereof and they shall not grow plants or crops in the petition schedule properties and cut and remove trees there from till the disposal of the Original Application.

2. Notice was served on the respondents. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also Shri M.P. Prakash, learned special Government Pleader. Shri M.P. Prakash, learned Government Pleader would raise a preliminary objection. It goes to the maintainability of the Appeals. He would submit that the impugned decision being interlocutory in nature and a decision not having been finally rendered in the Original Applications, no Appeal will lie under the Statute. It is necessary to immediately refer to the Statute in question. Section 11(1) of the Act reads as follows:

"11. Appeal to the High Court.-(1) The Government or any person objecting to any decision of the Tribunal may, within a period of sixty days from the date of that decision, appeal against such decision to the High Court.

Provided that the High Court may admit an appeal preferred after the expiry of the period of sixty days if it is satisfied that the appellant has sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the aforesaid period."

3. He would submit that an identical provision as contained in the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 has been judicially interpreted by this Court in three decisions and therein this Court has taken the view that an Appeal is not maintainable against an interlocutory order and it lies only against final decision. He would, therefore, commend for this Court's acceptance the said view. In Muhammadkutty v. Forest Tribunal (1978 KLT 619), a Division Bench of this Court considered Section 8A(1) of the Private Forests (Vesting and Assingment) Act, 1971 and held as follows:

"4. No doubt, use of the word "any before the word "decision" shows that every decision is appealable. But, that does not mean that every order passed in the proceeding by the Tribunal is appealable. Several orders may have to be passed in a proceeding before the final act of decision. They may have something or other to do with that final act of decision also. But, they are only orders leading up to the decision and are not t