Intra-court appeals do not lie against interlocutory orders merely directing affidavits without deciding parties’ rights.

MAT 9 of 2026 challenged an interim order passed in a writ petition. During the pendency of the appeal, the main writ petition was disposed of, rendering the appeal infructuous. The Division Bench accordingly dismissed MAT 9 of 2026 and its connected application without costs.

MAT 10 of 2026 arose from an order dated 18 December 2025 in WPA 25289 of 2025, by which the learned Single Judge directed the parties to exchange affidavits.

The writ petition concerned the non-issuance of certificates of registration for e-rickshaw vehicles manufactured by the writ petitioner, allegedly due to an injunction dated 24 February 2020 passed by the Additional District Judge, Thirteenth Court at Alipore, in Title Suit No. 27 of 2018 concerning registration of battery-operated eco-friendly e-rickshaws.

The appellant contended that similar writ petitions had previously been decided on merits by the same Bench without directing affidavits and that the writ petition ought to have been disposed of at the initial hearing since the State was represented.

Whether an intra-court appeal lies against an interlocutory order merely directing the parties to exchange affidavits, where no substantive rights have been adjudicated.

Whether the learned Single Judge was required to decide the writ petition finally at the initial hearing because similar matters had allegedly been decided on merits and the State was represented.

Whether MAT 9 of 2026 survived after disposal of the main writ petition.

The Court applied the principle that an intra-court appellate jurisdiction does not ordinarily warrant interference with a procedural or interlocutory order that does not determine or affect the substantive rights of the parties.

The Court further proceeded on the principle that the scheduling and conduct of proceedings, including whether affidavits should be filed before final disposal of a writ petition, lie within the discretion of the learned Single Judge, subject to the requirements of justice.

An appeal that becomes incapable of producing any effective relief after the disposal of the underlying proceeding is liable to be dismissed as infructuous.

No statutory provision or precedent was specifically cited in the judgment.

The Division Bench found that the impugned order in MAT 10 of 2026 merely permitted the State to file affidavits and did not decide the legality of the non-issuance of registration certificates or otherwise adjudicate the parties’ rights.

Consequently, the order did not disclose a basis for interference within the limited scope of an intra-court appeal.

Although the appellant relied on the alleged disposal of similar writ petitions without exchange of affidavits, the Bench held that this did not create a right to immediate final adjudication in the present matter.

The Court also noted that the time for filing affidavits had expired, but considered the issue to be one for the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition.

As the main writ petition underlying MAT 9 of 2026 had already been disposed of, no effective relief remained available in that appeal.

MAT 10 of 2026 and CAN 1 of 2026 were dismissed, thereby affirming the order dated 18 December 2025 directing exchange of affidavits in WPA 25289 of 2025.

The Division Bench requested the learned Single Judge to consider early disposal of the writ petition on merits according to the Court’s convenience.

It expressly clarified that it had not examined the merits of the writ petition.

No order as to costs was made, and urgent certified copies were directed to be supplied upon compliance with the requisite formalities.