Ad-interim interim orders issued at the admission stage of a writ petition cannot be appealed under the Kerala High Court Act.

JUDGMENT

Alexander Thomas, J.

Both these writ appeals arise out of the impugned common interim order dated 21.03.2022 rendered by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Civil Nos.9424 & 9446 of 2022. The appellant in each of these appeals is the petitioner in the W.P(C). The respective contesting respondents in these appeals are the respective contesting respondents in the above writ petitions.

2. Heard Sri.C.S.Ajith Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in these cases and Sri.T.K.Vipindas, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the State. Notices to respondents 1 & 2 (Co-operative Appellate Tribunal & The Co-operative Arbitration Court respectively), will stand dispensed with, as those bodies are adjudicatory fora. Contesting respondents 3 & 4 in these writ appeals have not entered appearance even at the W.P(C) stage. In the nature of the orders proposed to be passed by us in these appeals, notices to the said parties will stand dispensed with.

3. The impugned common interim order rendered by the learned Single Judge on 21.03.2022 in the instant Writ Petition (Civil), W.P(C) Nos. 9424 & 9446 of 2022, reads as follows :

“Admit.

Urgent notice by speed post to respondents 3 and 4.

There will be an interim stay of further proceedings in E.P No.262 of 2020 of Subordinate Judges Court, Eranakulam for a period of two months on condition that the petitioner furnishes security for the decree amount to the satisfaction of the Execution Court within a period of six weeks from today.”

It is clear from a reading of the said order that the said order is an ad-interim ex-parte order passed by the learned Single Judge at the admission stage of the W.P(C) and before issuance of notice to contesting respondents 3 & 4. Further, we see that the currency period of the said interim order dated 21.03.2022, which was upto six weeks therefrom, has also expired on 05.05.2022. That apart, it is by now well-established by various decisions of this Court including the Larger Bench decision of this Court inK.S.Das v. State of Kerala [1992 (2) KLT 354 (LB)] that, ad-interim orders or interim orders, which cannot be classified as intermediate orders, cannot be the subject matter of intra-court appeal under Sec.5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act . This position has been reiterated by a Division Bench of this Court in other decisions as in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & anr. v. Saju.A.R & Ors. [2021 (5) KHC 398 (DB)],P.T.Thomas v. Bijo Thomas [2021 (6) KLT 196 (DB)], etc. The Division Bench of this Court inP.T.Thomas's case supra [2021 (6) KLT 196 (DB)] has dealt with the various aspects flowing out from the celebrated decision of the Apex Court inMadhu Limaye v.State of Maharashtra [(1977) 4 SCC 551] , to examine the meaning of the word 'interlocutory order' in depth, particularly, the substance and effect of interlocutory order. These aspects have also been dealt with in a recent judgment of the Division Bench rendered in the caseThiruvalla East Co-operative Bank Ltd. & anr. v. K.J.Amminikutty & anr. (judgment dated 17.11.2021 in W.A No.1510/2021). Suffice to say, since the present impugned order is only an ad-interim order passed at the admission stage, it is only to be held that appellate challenge at this stage is not maintainable. Needless to say, it is open to the appellant to seek for extension and modification of the interim order. In case, the appellant prefer any modification, it is open to them to seek extension of the same and modification and it is for the learned Single Judge to consider those issues. We make it clear that we have not entered into those aspects while dismissing these appeals as not maintainable. Accordingly, the above Writ Appeals will stand dismissed.

ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE