JUDGMENT : 

VIKAS BAHL, J.

1. Present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed under Clause X of Letters Patent Act with the prayer to set aside the order dated 29.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Bench whereby the civil misc. application bearing CM-19685-2025 in CWP-38818-2025 has been dismissed.

2. Present appeal has been filed against the order dated 29.12.2025, which is reproduced as under: -

“CM-19685-CWP-2025 in

CWP-38818-2025

RAM DIYA ATTRI V/S UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Present: - Applicant-petitioner in person.

Mr. Sudhir Nar, Sr. Panel Counsel, Union of India, for respondent No.1, 3 and 4.

The writ petition has been filed by the applicant-petitioner through Sh. A.S. Cheema, Advocate and the instant application has been filed by the applicant-petitioner in person for preponement of date of hearing of the main case, which is slated for 09.01.2026.

No ground to prepone the date of hearing of the main case is made out. Dismissed.

29.12.2025”

A perusal of the above order would show that the main writ petition was listed for 09.01.2026 and was filed through Mr. Arshdeep Singh Cheema, Advocate and the petitioner in person had moved an application for preponement during vacations and the learned Single Judge (Vacation Judge) had found no ground to prepone the date of hearing of the main case and accordingly, had dismissed the said application. It is against the said order dated 29.12.2025 that the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed.

3. The present Letters Patent Appeal in our considered view is not maintainable.

4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. Vs. Chunilal Nanda and others”, reported as (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 399, had in para 15 taken note of interim orders/interlocutory orders which are passed during the pendency of a case and had broadly put them in five categories. Paras 15 and 16 of the said judgment which are relevant are reproduced 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 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.”

It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that LPA against cases falling under categories (iv) and (v) would not be maintainable, although the orders falling under categories (i), (ii) and (iii) can be challenged in appeal by filing Letters Patent Appeal. In the present case, it cannot even remotely be said that the order passed by the learned Single Judge would fall under categories (i), (ii) and (iii) against which LPA is maintainable and at best would fall under category (v), against which it has been held that no LPA is maintainable.

5. The Hon'ble S