The High Court · 2025

petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition' the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Order No' TS/RO/HYD/73305/C-50203 -2018 dated 08-06-2018 passed by 1't Respondent confirmed by the 2nd Respondent' Hyderabad vide order passed in EPF Appeal No' 2Ol2018 dated 06-03-2025 till disposal of the Writ Appeal and pass such order or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of iustice' Counsel for r.hr: Appeflant: SRI G. VtDyA SAGAR, AppEt\RtNrG FOR MS. SHIREEN SETHNA BARII\ Counsel for the, Respondent No.l: SRI DASAGARI RAGHAVETNDAR RAO SC FOR EPFO Counsel for,re rlespondent No.2: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUM,,,R, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GEN[:RAL OF INDIA The Court Oelivered the fofiowing: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL ANI) THE HON'BLE SMT. JT'STICE RENUKA YARA WRIT APPEAL No.53O of2o.25 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble tLe Acting Chief Jtstice Sujog Paul) Sri G.Vidya Sagar, Iearned Senior Counsel appearing for Ms.Shireen Sethna Baria, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Dasagari Raghavendar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1.

2. Heard on admission-

3. Tihis irttra Court appeals takes exception to an interlocutory order/interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in W.P.No.1O3B5 of 2025 dated L6'O4'2025'

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge should not have passed the impugned order and it is causing serious prejudice to the appellant'

5. The pivotal question is whether this intra court appeal is rnaintainable against an interlocutory order? 2 6 . Thi s (l rrrt has consistently taken a iriev, b; rsed on the Supreme C:ou rl judgments that unless the intr:rlo,;utc ry order has the charar:tt:r of a Judgment', the writ appea / Le tters Patent Appeal is n rt rraintainable.

7. Recer;tlr, in W.A.No.506 of 2025 ald birtch, dated 30.O4.20125,, .-lrLs Court held as under: "7. qrl trittedly, the appellants are party res;rondents beforc tr: Iearned Single Judge. The learned liing e ,Judge has l.ras sed the impugned order withor,rt pu tt Lng the appr: ar.ls to notice. Thus, the appellants (:an :ert Linly file applicirt.i;,ns for vacation of the aforesaid ordr:r. If such applictrt.i,,ns are filed, the learned Single .Iudge rvill ,:ertainly exarei[r: the same and in that event, it cannot be said that the ,rr:ler rmpugned passed by the learned Singlc .lr- dge has attarn, d finality or falls within the ambit o[ ,.jucgment,,. Thus, lh< judgment of the Supreme Court in LI(: of India v. Sanjerlv Builders (Pl Ltd. ((2O 18) I I SCC] 7:r2) r s o[ no assis;t:; nc : in the factual backdrop of this matter.. 1. re point invorvr:d rr this case is no more res integro. ln c rtena of judgmcn r s, it was held that against an interlocu'ory order, a [,ett(rr:i I)ir:ent Appeal/Writ Appeal can be c.nter.taired rvith circttnrs p :,:tion and upon fulhlling the requ rcn_"ents ol certz-ir r lrt:tors.

8. n Jniversity of Hyderabad, rep. by itsr Re.gi51."., Centr:r.l ttniversity Campus (p.Of , Gachibowli, Hy,:lerabad v. Saclil: Ilussain (2O 13 SCC Online Ap :t42) a )ivision Benc h of the erstwhile High Court of And hra pra lesh at Hydr rirb,; J considered Clause 15 of the Let,-ers pat rnt and opinr)d th rt it provides an appeal from a "judgmc tt,, (,f Single .ludgr: r r ': <ercise of original jurisdiction to a Division Bench. The_ jr.r,:lgnr,:nt of the Supreme Court in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayr:rberi D.Kania (AIR l98l SC l7g6) was considcred and it was lrr:l 7 that'orders falling under categories (ir,)anl (u) are \- { { not 'judgments' for tle purpose of filing apryals prouid.ed under tlte letter Potent'. Categories (iv) and (v) read thus: "(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 inconvenienc.e or some preiudice to a DartY. but which do not frnally determine the riehts and oblisations of the oarties." Lastly, the Division Bench recorded as under: " At the cost of the repetition, it is to be noticed that the learned Single Judge has not decided the rights and obligations of the parties and onlv passed interlocutory orders and hence in our considered Yiew the same does rot satisfu the of the iudgments as defined under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and it will be appropriate for the aPpellant to file vacate petitioo. Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of w'ith the said observation." (Emphasis Supplied) g. In Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda ((2006) 5 SCC 399), on which heavy reliance is placed, the Supreme Court held as under: 'l5.lnterim orders/interlocutory orders passed during the pendency of a case, [a]l under one or the ot her of the following categories: (r) Orders which finally decide a question or issue rn controversy in the main case. (izJ Orders which frnally decide al issue which materially and directly affects the final decision in the main case. (iirJ Orders which frnalty decide a collatera] issue or question which is not the subject-matter of the main case. 4 (i,i Routine orders which are passed to facilir ate ]re prr )ffcss of ttre case till its culmtnation in the fi ta1 jr-;111ment. (r,) ()rders which may cause some inconveni:nce or sorce prejudice to a party, but which do not frnr,Jly dcr( rmine the rights and obligations of the palties lll . The term Judgment" occurring in claus,: 15 of tl, ktters Patent will take into its fold not cr y he jur 6;ments as defined in Section 2(9) CPC and ordlrrs errl'nerated in Order 43 Rule 1 CPC, but also otlLer or<tt:rs which, though may not finally a nd c(),r,:luslvely determlne the rlghts of partk:s wi.th repa.rd to all or any matters iu controvers y, rr,ay ha'rr: finality in regard to some collateral. rnatt,ef, whir:h will alfect the gital and valuable rlgtlts and obligations of the parties. Interlocul.ory ord)rs r,".- r:h [a]l under categories (r) to (iir) abor e, a re, thcr:[ore, Judgments" for the purpose o. fit ng apl rr:als under the l,etters Patent. Oa the oth.er harrrl, orders falling ynder categories (iu) arrd (u) rre oot "iudsments" for the purpose of filin Ulpgrrlp crr;r.ided under the ktters Patent." (Emphasis Sr ppli rd)

10. 'ltr,: Supreme Court in a recent judgmerLt in Shyam Sel and l,,f,wer Li.mited v. Shyam Steel Indust:ries Limited ((2O'.';-:t 1 ' SiCC 634) took a similar view. 11. 'f :rr: Supreme Court laid down the lif,nus tcst to detcrrr Lin : whether the order impugned is a ,. ju Cgment,, withir: th : meaning of l,etters Patent. If the l)res,]nr rnat-ter is exarni ner on the anvil of, said principles, it rvill te c ear that (i) by irnp,ugned order the learned Single Ju<lge has not fina] 11, d. c ided the question or issue in contro r,ers ,. in thc main , a ; : (ii) the impugned order has not decicl:cl a 1.y issue whic h rrr rr erially or directly affects final decrsior, in thc WriL Petilio:, iii) the impugned order does not have an\ impact on :r :r-; :Ltcral issue or question which lvas not subjecL matl cr r)l rn:tin case." R nr,-,,.,, **...'i] l-) o ccurse of arg,Jment, argu mer t: could be advanced t(l .r r,.isf_v' the lltmus test laid dor,r.n b-,,,$tqQ-re rnc Court to r { ) bring the impugned ord'er within the ambit of 'judgment'' the writ appeal is not m aintainable ' Thus, Faced with this' the learned Senior Counsel submits that the g. appellalt will frle appropriate application before the learned Single Judge for the desired relief and tilt such time such application is filed and decided, the appellant may be protected' Ttre Supreme Court lrt Kalabharati Advertising v. llemant Vimalnath interregnum Period' no Narichanial opined that for such an interim relief can be granted because the main matter itself is not maintainable before this Bench' At paragraph No'22 of the aforesaid jud'grnent reads as under:- 1 ) ii:;;" td _"-':# 1:l: ;"*' I ?'*tfl" fr ; :'H ",}i:i * 22. t t i sa se *red o-31 court cannot b". Y:"o"13t, relief to any lrtrganr. rf the court as the onlv and the-t^?.i1.;"'"'|-;;'- in. matler requires comes to !h" """lt[il'"oo,op'itt. forum and re]efal,ej a rt i ud icat ion bv some 9 t';;' ".1 i:il,^ : lr*,t"J]j: ::i.',','S K'ili".[l:ii Ji'';,;;;;;"' ': i"l',',::i rorum and rirr the said parw approaches the' a I te'i:-a:;vtn'!odan Copol ]il,i';'.i'iiii[=.ir"r^lY'd::1g","Jry[i"\ri"'","i*"*iriu- Rurlsta 11951 SC^C^L11,,o,X'^rrur""aa l3gsl , State ol, ^#;l:' 6115;,'." i' f # i t ;," i1, # gl""; ";:'; t biii " Rambatak t,*:l)7J-i,"1;;;#; Ld'- v - Kamtekar cri LJ r076l ""o l'fil*r'rtt'iri:.'lrro scc (L&s)70 : SlTantar(lm Wadke ll -lv ArR 1975 sc 2234l|'l 3',x t (20t0)9 SCC 4j1 i ) 6 marntain a irl(l lO. In t hir. view of the matter, this rvrit ap peal rs not Liberty is reserved to the appellant to ;1pp16a6h ths ie Judge by filing an appropriate app lication. In only an learned Sin61 nutshell, s in, r: the iearned Single Judge h;ts :ass ed rnterlocutor.y , rr-der and rights and liabilities of the par.ties be hna-lly Ce:terrlninscl, at this stage, interference is r]eclined have to

11. cos ts AccorclirrrsJy, thc writ appeal is dismissed No rrder as to Miscr:il:rrr r:,tus petitions pending, if any, shall s tan I ciosed. I To, ITIRUECOPYII \ ' o."Pro##39[f*' \( SECTION OFFICER nlu,.1;tti5#rfl iiiTlf:?*;$l',ss.r,s,r,E PL'CI PFO [()Pucl r G enet.al of ' I I 1 2 3 4 TJ Lw HIGH COIJRT DATED:Ct2 tOSt2OzS JUDGMEI{T WA.No.S3A of 2025 4=i ES t4 o.J c ?1,t fitM (r .-' ' Or. \, r,r. .1;r0 * \.r: DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WTHOUT CI:ISTS 7t