S. MANIKUMAR, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to an interim order made in W.M.P. No.27381 of 2016 in W.P. No.31540 of 2016 dated 12.09.2016, by which, following an earlier order made in W.P. No.13001/2016 and W.M.P. Nos.11355 and 11356 of 2016, and also a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Lever and Anr vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2004) 9 SCC 438, a Learned Single Judge has granted interim stay for a period of two weeks.

2. It is well settled law that a writ appeal would not lie against an interim order. In the case on hand, interim stay has been granted only for two weeks. Instead of filing a petition for vacating the interim order, writ appeal has been filed.

3. The issue as to whether a writ appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is maintainable against an interim order granted in a writ petition, is no longer res integra. The same has been dealt by a Hon'ble Division Bench of this court in The Anna University v. Narayanaguru International Institute of Science and Technology (Regd. Trust) and others in W.A.(MD) No.466 of 2015 dated 14.05.2015. After considering the earlier decisions of this Court, the Hon'ble Bench, held that writ appeal as against interim order granted in writ petition, was not maintainable.

4. A similar question arose for consideration before a Hon'ble Division Bench of this court in R.Kannan v. Indcom Electronics Ltd., stating that the order impugned therein is not a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of Letters Patent of this court. A Hon'ble Division Bench, elaborately considered the matter, and held that interim order made in the petition, which has not reached finality, determining the rights and liabilities as between the parties and which cannot be said to have caused grave and substantial injustice to the appellant, will not fall within the meaning of the expression 'judgment' occurring in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Divsion Bench held that writ appeal was not maintainable against an interim order.

5. In Dr.Chinnaraj Joseph Jeyakumar Joseph Jeyakumar v. The Governing Counsel of Amercian College and Others in W.A.No.540 of 2008, dated 02.08.2008, another Hon'ble Division Bench of this court held that ex-parte interim orders are not judgments for an aggrieved person to invoke the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court, under clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Adopting the same legal principle, W.A. No.2347 of 2012, dated 05.12.2012, was disposed of by the Hon'ble First Bench giving liberty to the appellant therein to file application to vacate the interim order.

6. In Hindu Nadar Educational Trust, represented by its Managing Trustee and others vs. Hindu Nadar Uravinmurai, Nilakottai, in W.A.(MD) No.312 of 2016 dated 22.02.2016, a Division Bench of which one of us is a party (Justice S.Manikumar), held as follows:

"In the abovesaid circumstances, we would only clarify that the interim order, granted in W.M.P(MD)Nos.23 and 24 of 2016 in W.P(MD)No.23 of 2016 dated 05.01.2016, would be an interim order, till the miscellaneous petitions are finally heard and decided, along with the vacate stay petition. It shall not be an interim order, as prayed for, in the miscellaneous petitions, till the disposal of the writ petition. It could only be an interim order, till the parties to the lis, are put on notice, in the interim applications and heard. With the above clarification, we only request the Writ Court, to take up the injunction petitions in W.M.P(MD)Nos.23 and 24 of 2016 in W.P(MD)No.23 of 2016, along with the vacate stay petition, and pass orders, as expeditiously as possible. Registry is directed to place the matter before the learned single Judge.

Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P(MD)No.1856 of 2016 is

7. In Special Tahsildar No.III, Land Acquisition, Lignite Project, Neyveli, vs. V.Rangasamy Reddiar, reported in AIR 1988 Madras 162, this Court, has held as follows:-

''2. We are very much concer