Special Writ Appeal Against Interim Orders Before Rajasthan High Court and the Maintainability Test

Litigants who lose an interim order before a Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court often ask whether they can immediately challenge that order by filing a special writ appeal before a Division Bench. The answer is not a simple yes or no. The maintainability of such an appeal turns on the substance of the impugned order, the jurisdiction under which the writ petition was filed, and whether the order amounts to a judgment within the meaning of Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949.

The Core Rule: Interim Alone Is Not Enough

An intra-court special appeal against an interim order is generally maintainable only when the order, though interim in form, effectively decides the substantial rights of the parties or produces a final result. A special appeal is typically not maintainable merely because the order is interlocutory in nature.

Courts have repeatedly dismissed appeals against purely procedural orders. In one such matter, a Single Judge had simply allowed two weeks for filing a response to an affidavit; the Division Bench held that because the order was procedural and determined no substantive rights, the special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 — a provision materially similar to the Rajasthan scheme — was not maintainable 2025 0 Supreme(All) 3688. Similarly, where a Single Judge merely vacated interim stay orders without resolving the pending writ petition, the appeal was held not to qualify as a judgment and was dismissed 1971 Supreme(Online)(All) 6.

The test, therefore, is functional rather than formal: does the interim order conclusively determine rights or issues material to the outcome of the main case?

The Article 226 Versus Article 227 Distinction

A critical threshold question is the nature of the writ petition in which the interim order was passed.

• A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution invokes the High Court's original jurisdiction, and a special appeal against a Single Judge's order in such a petition is maintainable under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 1997 0 Supreme(SC) 111.
• A petition filed purely under Article 227 exercises supervisory jurisdiction, and an intra-court appeal against orders passed in that jurisdiction is generally barred. Rule 134(i) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 specifically excludes appeals against orders made in the exercise of the power of superintendence 2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 20356.

The label on the petition is not always decisive. Where the contents of a petition showed that the appellant had, in substance, invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, the court held that the petition has to be treated as a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and that the Division Bench erred in treating it as one under Article 227 1997 0 Supreme(SC) 111. Conversely, where a petition was solely under Article 227 — for instance, against a Lok Adalat award — the special appeal was dismissed as not maintainable 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 1513.

The Jurisdictional Exception: Orders Passed Without Jurisdiction

Even where an order is interim, a special appeal may lie if the Single Judge acted without jurisdiction or in excess of it. Orders passed beyond the jurisdiction assigned to a Single Judge — including beyond the roster assigned by the Chief Justice — have been treated as void and appealable 2025 0 Supreme(All) 3671.

In one case, the Division Bench allowed a special appeal against an interim order because the Single Judge had travelled beyond the scope of the writ petition, which was confined to the validity of interim orders under Sections 70 and 71 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965:

With utmost respect, the scope of the writ petition was confined to considering the validity of interim orders passed in proceedings under Section 70 read with 71 of the Act, 1965... The single judge has gone ahead and considered certain issues under the criminal law... which was not the subject matter of the writ petition and certainly not within the jurisdiction of learned Single Judge. 2025 0 Supreme(All) 3671

A void or coram non judice order thus stands on a different footing from a merely erroneous interim order.

Interim Orders in Revision Proceedings: A Different Doctrine

Litigants sometimes conflate the rules governing special appeals with those governing revisions. Under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, revision before the Board of Revenue lies only against decided cases and final orders — not against ad-interim orders passed by subordinate revenue courts 2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 13521 and 2025 0 Supreme(Raj) 108. The Board of Revenue itself cannot grant an interim stay on a decree where it has concurrently held the appeal before it to be not maintainable 2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 13279.

This restrictive principle, however, applies to statutory revisions — not to special writ appeals under Section 18 of the Ordinance. A writ appeal challenges the jurisdiction and legality of the order itself, whereas a revision challenges factual or legal errors in a decided case. Separately, where an appeal is available against an ex-parte interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 3 and 3A read with Order 43 Rule 1 of the CPC, a revision before the Board of Revenue is not maintainable 2021 0 Supreme(Raj) 389, and orders refusing ex parte ad-interim injunctions under Order 39 are themselves appealable under Order 43 Rule 1(r) 2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 6371.

Practical Limitations and Alternative Remedies

• If the interim order merely refuses ad-interim relief without adjudicating any substantial right, and an adequate statutory remedy exists, the special appeal will likely be dismissed as not maintainable.
• Judicial orders of civil courts are generally not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, and Rule 134 does not permit appeals against Article 227 orders 2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 20356.
• The power to mould relief under Article 226 allows a Single Judge to grant relief beyond the express prayers, but this does not by itself make the order appealable — the substantial-rights or jurisdictional test still governs.

Key Takeaways and Recommendations

1. Establish the threshold first. Before filing, counsel should confirm that the interim order either determines substantial rights of the parties or is void for want of jurisdiction.
2. Frame the grounds on jurisdiction. Grounds built around the Single Judge's excess of jurisdiction, or the erroneous treatment of an Article 226 petition as one under Article 227, are typically the strongest 1997 0 Supreme(SC) 111 and 2025 0 Supreme(All) 3671.
3. Check the nature of the proceeding. If the writ petition was purely under Article 227, an intra-court appeal will generally not lie 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 1513.
4. Pursue statutory remedies where they exist. For purely procedural interim orders, the appropriate course is usually to press for interim relief before the Single Judge or use the statutory appellate channel rather than a special appeal 2025 0 Supreme(All) 3688.

In summary, an interim order is not automatically immune from a special writ appeal before the Rajasthan High Court, but it is not automatically appealable either. The order must either effectively decide substantial rights or suffer from a complete lack of jurisdiction, and the underlying petition must ordinarily trace its origin to Article 226. Litigants should assess their specific facts with a qualified advocate, as outcomes are fact-dependent and this discussion is general information rather than legal advice.