An interim order does not constitute a final determination of rights, making an appeal under such circumstances non-maintainable.

JUDGMENT SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI ,J Heard C.M. Appln No.1 of 2026 for condonation of delay.

The appeal has been filed with a delay of 32 days. Having perused the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application to condone the delay, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been made out to condone the delay. Hence, delay is condoned, and the Writ Appeal is heard finally.

2. Heard on the question of admission.

2.1. The present intra-court appeal assails the interim order dated 07.11.2025 passed in WP(C) No.41396/2025 whereby the Writ Petition has been entertained, admitted, notice issued to the respondents therein.

Facts:

3. The appellant is the 2^nd respondent in the Writ Petition and the complainant in C.C.No.172/2025 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kannur. And the 1^st respondent/Petitioner is the 3^rd opposite party in CC No.172/2025 whereby the 1^st respondent was declared ex-parte by the Commission. The 1^st respondent challenged the Ext.P2 order of the Commission confirming the ex-parte declaration in the Writ Petition. An interim order dated 07.11.2025 was issued by the learned Single Judge. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present Writ Appeal.

Appellant’s Contention:

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Single Judge ought not to have entertained the Writ Petition as the same is not maintainable in view of the efficacious statutory alternative remedy available under Sections 40 & 41 of the Consumer Protection Act , 2019. The learned Single Judge also erred in granting and extending interim relief of stay of proceedings. Without exhausting the statutory remedy of review under Section 40 of the Act, the Writ Petition ought not to have entertained. Hence, the order impugned herein deserves to be set aside and the Writ Appeal be allowed.

Respondent’s Contention:

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and submitted that the present writ appeal is not maintainable, as the interim order does not finally decide the issue involved in the main writ petition. Therefore, the writ appeal deserves to be dismissed on that ground alone.

Discussion and Analysis:

6. On perusal of the impugned interim order under challenge, it can be seen that the learned Single Judge has admitted and issued notice to the respondents as well as granted interim relief stay order. The proper course for the appellant herein would have been to move an application for vacation of stay order as well as raise all objections which are being raised before this Court.

6.1. Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India reads as under:

“Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1), without--

(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order;

and (b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favor such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the said next day, stand vac