Point of Law : Order passed on an application for interim relief is ordinarily not a "judgment" but it will qualify to be called ''judgment' if it affects valuable right of the party or decides an important aspect of the trial and the effect of the order on the party concerned is direct and immediate rather than indirect and remote".

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Srivastava, Vivek Varma, JJ.

1. Heard Sri Anu Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Amitabh Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2, Sri Pawan Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4 and Sri Shashank Pathak, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for respondent nos. 6 to 18.

2. The present special appeal has been filed seeking to challenge the order dated 1.11.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 25379 (M/S) of 2021 (Rama Kant Pandey and others v. Principal Secretary. Institutional finance, Lucknow & Ors.).

3. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents with regard to maintainability of the special appeal. It has been contended that the order under challenge in this appeal does not decide the rights of the parties and as such, the same cannot held to be a judgment for the purposes of filing an intra Court appeal. He further submits that the appellant has filed a stay vacation application along with counter affidavit in the present writ petition and the said application is stated to be listed on 6.12.2021.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant by referring to the merits of the case has contended that the present special appeal is maintainable.

5. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, we deem it necessary to set out the impugned order dated 1.11.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge against which the present special appeal has been preferred. The order dated 1.11.2021 reads as under:

"The petitioners' names were included in the list of members of the General Body of the Society registered for the year 2017 and 2018 with the office of the Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits. Now, by the impugned order dated 28.07.2021, the said list that was registered under Section 4B of the Societies Registration Act, has been revised. It has excluded the petitioners names. The list of 2017-18 relates to members of the General Body of the Society known as Shiksha Prachar Tatha Prasar Samiti, Village Babhnan, Post Sugar Mill Babhnan, District Gonda, carrying a total of 78 members, including the petitioners. The list that has now been drawn up and made part of the impugned order dated 28.07.2021, passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, carries 45 names excluding the petitioners.

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that once a list of members is registered, the name of its members cannot be excluded on any ground whatsoever without hearing the members whose name is proposed to be excluded. It has been asserted in paragraph Nos. 50 and 51 of the writ petition that the impugned orders have been passed by the Deputy Director, Firms Societies and Chits, in collusion with opposite party Nos. 4 and 5, without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

Mr. Virendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Pawan Kumar Pandey, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.5. Learned Standing Counsel and Mr. Pandey, appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the earlier list was got illegally registered by unauthorized persons on the basis of sham elections and that before passing the impugned order, Kashi Prasad Mishra, Vipin Kumar Mishra, Brij Bihari Mishra and Shalini Mishra, respondent No.5, were heard.

Prima facie, the impugned order has been passed without opportunity of hearing. Reliance in this connection has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the decision of this Court in Shiv Narain Agarwal and Others Vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Institutional Finance, Lko. & Ors, Miscellaneous Single No.16656 of 2021 decided on 06.08.2021, where opportunity of hearing before removal of the name of a member of the General Body has been held to be an essential requirement of the exercise of power to amend the list of members of the General Body.

Issue notic