Writ appeals against interlocutory orders are not maintainable unless such orders constitute a 'judgment' under Letters Patent, determining rights or effects in the main case.

JUDGMENT :

SUJOY PAUL, ACJ.

1. Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Ms.Shireen Sethna Baria, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Dasagari Raghavendar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1.

2. Heard on admission.

3. This intra Court appeals takes exception to an interlocutory order/interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in W.P.No.10385 of 2025 dated 16.04.2025.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge should not have passed the impugned order and it is causing serious prejudice to the appellant.

5. The pivotal question is whether this intra court appeal is maintainable against an interlocutory order?

6. This Court has consistently taken a view based on the Supreme Court judgments that unless the interlocutory order has the character of a ‘judgment’ the writ appeal/Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable.

7. Recently, in W.A.No.506 of 2025 and batch, dated 30.04.2025, this Court held as under:

“7. Admittedly, the appellants are party respondents before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order without putting the appellants to notice. Thus, the appellants can certainly file applications for vacation of the aforesaid order. If such applications are filed, the learned Single Judge will certainly examine the same and in that event, it cannot be said that the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge has attained finality or falls within the ambit of “judgment”. Thus, the judgment of the Supreme Court in LIC of India v. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd. (2018) 11 SCC 722 is of no assistance in the factual backdrop of this matter. The point involved in this case is no more res integra. In catena of judgments, it was held that against an interlocutory order, a Letters Patent Appeal/Writ Appeal can be entertained with circumspection and upon fulfilling the requirements of certain factors.

8. In University of Hyderabad, Rep. by its Registrar, Central University Campus (P.O.) Gachibowli, Hyderabad v. Sadik Hussain, 2013 SCC OnLine AP 342, a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad considered Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and opined that it provides an appeal from a “judgment” of Single Judge in exercise of original jurisdiction to a Division Bench. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania, AIR 1981 SC 1786 was considered and it was held that ‘orders falling under categories (iv) and (v) are not ‘judgments’ for the purpose of filing appeals provided under the Letter Patent’. Categories (iv) and (v) read thus:

“(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.”

Lastly, the Division Bench recorded as under:

“ At the cost of the repetition, it is to be noticed that the learned Single Judge has not decided the rights and obligations of the parties and only passed interlocutory orders and hence in our considered view the same does not satisfy the trappings of the judgments as defined under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and it will be appropriate for the appellant to file vacate petition. Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of with the said observation.” (Emphasis Supplied)

9. In Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda, (2006) 5 SCC 399 on which heavy reliance is placed, the Supreme Court held as under:

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