Tripathi, J. - (1.) THE appellant is i Co-operative Housing Society registew under the U. P. Co-operative Societies ACT No. II of 1912. A small piece of land mea suring about 19 biswas and 6 biswansi is being acquired by the State Government for the Society on the Lucknow-Kanpur road at a distance of four miles from the Charbagh railway station. The Society has already executed an agreement in favour of the State Government in accordance with the provisions of Section 39 of the Land Acquisition Act and has also made the necessary deposit. The, validity of the acquisition proceedings which are still pending disposal before the appropriate authority was challenged by the respondents before the Lucknow Bench of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ No. 786 of 1970. The appellant Society was not made a party to after aforesaid writ petition. Accordingly the appellant Society applied for being impleaded as a party to the writ petition, in ter alia, on the assertion that it was a neces sary party to the proceedings. That ap plication was rejected by a learned single Judge of the Court by his order dated August 19, 1970. This appeal is directed against that order.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respon dents had raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal. It is urged that in view of three Division Bench decisions of this Court in Gopal Bihari Kapur v. District Magistrate of Etah (1967 All LJ 990); Siaram v. Nathuram, (1968 All LJ 576) and Radhey Shyam v. State of U. P., 1970 All LJ 735 = (AIR 1971 All 39), no Special Appeal lies to the High Court against an interlocutory order pass ed by a single Judge of the Court. On the other hand, it has been contended on behalf of the appellant that as the impugned order amounts to a case de cided having finally disposed of the appel lant's prayer for being impleaded as party to the writ petition it is a judgment.
(3.) THE cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents are dis tinguishable on facts. In Gopal Bihari's case, 1967 All LJ 990 mentioned above, the Division Bench was seized with a matter in which the petitioners' application for an inte rim relief had been refused while his writ petition had remained pending. In that con nection it was held that an order granting or vacating an interim order in a pending writ petition does not amount to a judgment and is, therefore, not appealable under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent or under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of Rules of Court.;