Routine interlocutory orders in writ proceedings are not appealable under Clause 15 unless they constitute a judgment.

The appellant, the fourth respondent in the writ petition, challenged an interim order dated 2 September 2026 granting a stay of the order impugned in W.P.(MD) No. 25452 of 2026.

While the writ appeal was pending, the High Court dismissed the main writ petition.

Whether the writ appeal against the interim order continued to survive after the main writ petition had been dismissed.

Whether an intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent lies against the interim order made in a writ miscellaneous petition.

Under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an interlocutory order is appealable only if it qualifies as a “judgment.”

Relying on Midnapore Peoples Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda, Civil Appeal No. 1727 of 2002, decided on 25 May 2006, the Court applied the distinction between interlocutory orders that finally determine an issue or collateral matter affecting vital rights—which may constitute judgments—and routine orders facilitating the progress of a case or causing only inconvenience or prejudice—which do not.

The Court stated that this position had been consistently followed by the courts.

The appeal challenged an interim stay, but the main writ petition had already been dismissed; accordingly, the appeal against the interim order no longer survived.

The Court also addressed maintainability, applying the Midnapore categories and holding that an intra-court appeal would not lie against the order passed in the writ miscellaneous petition.

The judgment did not examine the merits of the underlying impugned order.

The interim order granted by the Single Judge was vacated; there was no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.