JUDGMENT

Heard Dr. L.P. Misra, Shri Ujjwal Tripathi and Shri Shashank Shekhar Shukla, learned Counsel for the appellants, Shri Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri M.B. Singh, learned Counsel for respondents no.1 and 2, Shri Amitabh Kumar Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Shri Yogesh Chandra Srivastava, learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank and perused the material brought on record.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the interim order dated 17.10.2022 passed in Writ -C No.7244 of 2022 (Society-Ram Bharosey Maiku Lal Higher Secondary School, Telibag, Lucknow through its Manager and another v. State of U.P. & others), the instant intra-Court appeal has been preferred by the appellants.

3. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned Counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 with regard to maintainability of instant special appeal. It has been contended that the order under appeal does not decide the rights of the parties and as such the same cannot be held to be a judgment for the purposes of filing of an intra Court appeal.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellants has supported the maintainability of instant appeal by referring to the merits of the case and trying to contend that the order under appeal was legally unjustifiable. In support of his argument, he has placed reliance on the judgment and orders dated 16.02.2022 and passed in Writ-C No.907 of 2022 :Smt. Ritu Sahu and others v. State of U.P. and 06.06.2022 Writ C No.3439 of 2022 - Ms. Shipra Kapil and others v. State of U.P. & others, respectively, whereby both the writ petitions were disposed of with direction to the writ petitioners to submit additional objections, if any, against the order dated 03.01.2022 before the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow Region, Lucknow, who shall consider and decide the said additional objections along with the objections already submitted along with the relevant rules, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. He further submits that although in the order dated 03.01.2022, which is impugned before the Writ Court, it has been mentioned that the complaints were to be treated under section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, but the learned Single Judge has not considered this aspect of the matter and has passed the impugned order dated 17.10.2022.

5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records, it is relevant to note that in Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. and others v. Chunilal Nanda and others , (2006) 5 SCC 399 , the Apex Court has emphasised that routine orders which are passed to facilitate the progress of the case till its culmination in the final judgment are not to be held as "judgments" for the purposes of filing intra-Court appeals. It was also held that orders which may cause some inconvenience or some prejudice to a party but which do not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties, would not amount to "judgments".

6. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the interim order dated 17.10.2022, against which the present appeal has been preferred, is merely of a procedural nature and cannot in any manner be said to touch the merits of the controversy or the dispute between the parties so as to be deemed to have been issued in exercise of powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution.

7. Considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. (supra) and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the preliminary objection is sustained. However, considering the plea of the appellants th