Interlocutory orders can be appealable under certain circumstances if they affect substantive rights, even if termed interim.

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J .

The present intra-court appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958, challenges the interim order dated 07.01.2026 passed in W.P.(C) No. 5725 of 2025, whereby the learned Single Judge has passed the following order;

“ In the light of the Judgment rendered in WP(C).NO 19736 of 2024 filed by the Co-operative Bank which had also made deposits with the 1st respondent society, there shall be an interim direction to the 1st respondent to release Rs.5,00,000/- each to the petitioners as an interim measure, within one month of receipt of copy of this order.

Post on 19.01.2026.”

2. The appellant herein is the first respondent in the writ petition, whereas the first and second respondents herein are the petitioners in the writ petition, and the third respondent herein is the second respondent in the writ petition.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the first and second respondents herein had filed the writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

“ i) Call for the records relating to Exhibit P1 to P15.

ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate order/direction directing the Respondents to forthwith refund to the petitioners the amounts covered under Exhibits P1 to P11 with the accrued interest till the date of actual date of refund.

iii) Dispense with filing of the English translations of vernacular documents, and iv) Pass such other order that may be prayed for and deemed fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.

INTERIM RELIEF For the reasons stated in the Writ Petition and accompanying Affidavit, Respondents may be directed to forthwith refund to the petitioners one half of the amounts due under Exhibits P1 to P11, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. ”

4. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned interim order granting the main relief prayed for in the writ petition. If the main relief and the interim relief are compared, it is evident that both are identical. He further submitted that it is the settled legal position that in case the interim relief granted is in the nature of final relief, then the writ appeal would be maintainable.

4.1. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that on perusal of the aforesaid interim order, it is clear that the learned Single Judge has granted main relief in the writ petition by way of interim relief. Therefore, in any event, such relief cannot be granted to respondents 1 and 2 herein in the writ petition. In the circumstances, the prayer has been made to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order.

Per contra

5. , the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the learned Single Judge had rightly passed the impugned order, since the same has been granted purely as an interim measure, which cannot be termed as final relief.

Therefore, the writ appeal deserves to be dismissed.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7. Admittedly, the present appeal has been filed against an interim order which appears to be of a final nature and akin to prayer clause No.ii in the writ petition. Therefore, unless the matter is adjudicated finally, the direction to release a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each to the petitioners as an interim measure could not have been initiated.

8. However, at this juncture, we would like to address how the Apex Court dealt with the concept of interlocutory order while dealing with the appeals preferred under the Letters Patent. We are conscious that the appeals under the Letters Patent are different from the appeals provided under the Kerala High Court Act , 1958, but the decisions rendered by the Apex Court are instructive to understand the nature and character of an interlocutory order. In Mid