Interlocutory orders are not subject to appeal if they do not conclusively determine rights or issues relevant to the main case.

JUDGMENT :

INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Shri Alok Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. By means of this special appeal an order passed on 26.11.2025 by learned Single Judge in Writ - A No. 13339 of 2025 has been challenged.The said order reads as under:-

"Short affidavit filed today on behalf of State is taken on record.

Learned counsel for petitioner prays for and is granted two weeks time to file response thereto.

List this case in 2nd week of January, 2026 as fresh."

3. The order impugned is purely an interlocutory order of a procedural nature which does not decide any issue whatsoever. Two weeks time was sought by the learned counsel for the appellant himself which was granted and the matter was posted in the 2nd week of January, 2026 as fresh.

4. The Special Appeal has been filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. The appeal under aforesaid provision is maintainable against a judgment or final order or an order having the trappings of finality. The nature of the order which is impugned herein does not fall in any of these categories. We may in this regard rely upon a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. Vs. Chunilal Nanda and Ors. reported in (2006) 5 SCC 399 , wherein term 'judgment' occurring in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent pertaining to another High Court was taken into consideration. The principle laid down in the said judgment applies in this case on all its fours. Para 15 and 16 of the said judgment reads as under:-

"15. Interim orders/interlocutory orders passed during the pendency of a case, fall under one or the other of the following categories:

(i) Orders which finally decide a question or issue in controversy in the main case.

(ii) Orders which finally decide an issue which materially and directly affects the final decision in the main case.

(iii) Orders which finally decide a collateral issue or question which is not the subject-matter of the main case.

(iv) Routine orders which are passed to facilitate the progress of the case till its culmination in the final judgment.

(v) 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."

16. The term 'judgment' occurring in clause 15 of the Letters Patent will take into its fold not only the judgments as defined in Section 2(9) CPC and orders enumerated in Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC, but also other orders which, though may not finally and conclusively determine the rights of parties with regard to all or any matters in controversy, may have finality in regard to some collateral matter, which will affect the vital and valuable rights and obligations of the parties. Interlocutory orders which fall under categories (i) to (iii) above, are, therefore, "judgments" for the purpose of filing appeals under the Letters Patent. On the other hand, orders falling under categories (iv) and (v) are not "judgments" for purpose of filing appeals provided under the Letters Patent.

5. The orders impugned herein falls in the category of Clause (iv) of Para 15 of the said judgment and does not fall in category (i) to (iii) of the above quoted Paragraph 15 and 16 of the judgment in Midnapore' case (supra). Likewise, is the law propounded by a Full Bench of this Court in a case reported in (2015) 4 UPLBEC 2673 ; Ashutosh Shrotriya and Ors. Vs. Vice-Chancellor, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University and Ors. , para 27 of which is relevant. In