Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bawa Jaspreet Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 22 April, 2024
Author: Deepak Sibal
Bench: Deepak Sibal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053994-DB
2024:PHHC:053994-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
( Sr. No. 125 ) LPA No.973 of 2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 22.04.2024
Bawa Jaspreet Singh
..... Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA
Present : Mr. Mahabir Singh Tanwar, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Prateek Mahajan, Advocate and
Ms. Prerna Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No.2.
***
DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)
(1) The present intra court appeal is directed against the order dated
16.04.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court through which
notice in the appellant's writ petition has been issued and the matter is now
posted for further proceedings on 13.08.2024.
(2) A complaint dated 14.09.2023 was made to the Sub Divisional
Officer (Civil), Kalka (for short - SDO) by the Chief Executive Officer,
Haryana Waqf Board (for short - CEO) bringing to his notice illegal
construction being made by the appellant on the property which, according
to the CEO, was Haryana Waqf Board's property. Acting on such
complaint, the SDO passed an order dated 15.01.2024 directing Tehsildar,
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053994-DB
LPA No.973 of 2024 [2] 2024:PHHC:053994-DB
Kalka to correct the revenue record on which the appellant relied upon to
justify the construction being made by him.
(3) Order dated 15.01.2024 was challenged by the appellant
through filing of a writ petition which came up for hearing before a learned
Single Judge of this Court on 16.04.2024, on which date, after recording the
submissions made on behalf of the appellant, the learned Single Judge issued
notice and posted the matter for further proceedings on 13.08.2024. The
interim order dated 16.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge is the
subject matter of challenge through the present intra court appeal.
(4) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned
Single Judge erred in not granting interim stay prayed for by the appellant as
at the time of passing of the impugned order the appellant had made out at
least a prima facie case, the balance of convenience was also in his favour
and that non grant of interim stay has caused the appellant irreparable loss.
(5) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Haryana
Waqf Board, relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Midnapore
Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. and others Vs. Chunilal Nanda and others
2006(5) SCC 399, questions the very maintainability of the instant appeal.
(6) Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and with their
able assistance the record of the case has also been perused.
(7) In Midnapore's case (supra) the Supreme Court has held as
follows : -
"16. 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.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053994-DB
LPA No.973 of 2024 [3] 2024:PHHC:053994-DB
(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.
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 of 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."
(8) Thus, the Supreme Court in Midnapore's case (supra)
has held that an intra court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent
would lie against interim orders which finally decide a question or issue in
controversy in the main case; interim orders which finally decide an issue
which would materially and directly affect the final decision in the main
case and against those interim orders which finally decide a collateral issue
or question which is not the subject matter of the main case. However, no
intra court appeal would lie against routine orders which are passed to
facilitate the progress of the case till its culmination in the final judgment
and against the interim orders which may cause some inconvenience or some
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053994-DB
LPA No.973 of 2024 [4] 2024:PHHC:053994-DB
prejudice to a party but which do not finally determine the rights and
obligations of the parties to the lis.
(9) A perusal of the interim order impugned through the instant
appeal reveals that through the same, after recording the submissions made
on behalf of the appellant, the learned Single Judge has issued notice to the
respondents and has simply posted the matter for further proceedings on
13.08.2024. There is neither any final decision on any of the questions or
issues raised in the main case nor any final decision has been taken which
would materially and directly affect the decision in the main case. There is
also no final decision on any collateral issue or question which is not the
subject matter of the main case. The prayer for interim stay, as prayed for by
the appellant, has also not been finally adjudicated upon.
(10) In the light of the afore facts and the law declared by the
Supreme Court in Midnapore's case (supra), the impugned order is not a
"judgment" in terms of Clause X of the Letters Patent. Resultantly, the
present intra court appeal is held to be not maintainable.
(11) Dismissed.
(12) All pending miscellaneous application(s) also stand disposed
of.
(DEEPAK SIBAL)
JUDGE
22.04.2024 ( DEEPAK MANCHANDA )
sunil yadav JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
4 of 4
