V.G.OAK, J. - (1.) THIS is a special ap peal against an order passed by a single Judge of this Court vacating previous stay orders passed in a writ petition. On 27-1-1970 and 5-3-1970 interim stay orders were passed by the Court. Those interim stay orders were subsequently vacated by the learned single Judge on 31-3-1970. This special appeal by Radhey Shyam has been filed against the order dated. 31-3-1970. Radhey Shyam is the petitioner in the writ petition. The writ petition is still pending.
(2.) WE considered at the outset whether the impugned order is appeal able. In Bishambhar Nath v. Suraj Kali, 1959 All LJ 313 it was held by a Divi sion Bench of this Court that where the effect of the decision in the proceedings in which it was made was to put an end to the proceedings so far as the Court before which that proceeding was pend ing was concerned, the adjudication would be "judgment" within the mean ing of the term as contemplated in Chapter VIII, Rule 5, Rules of Court. In Standard Glass Beads Factory v. Shri Dhar, 1960 All LJ 387 -(AIR 1960 All 692) it was held by a Full Bench of this Court that an order of a single Judge of the High Court dismis sing an appeal against an order granting a temporary injunction is a "judgment" within the meaning of Cl. 10 of the Letters Patent of Allahabad High Court.
(3.) IN the two cases referred to above the impugned order was a deci sion by a single Judge finally disposing of the proceedings before him. The situation in the instant case is different. The impugned order dated 31-3-1970 does not dispose of the writ petition. The writ petition is still pending before the single Judge. The impugned order is an interlocutory order.;