Om Prakash Trivedi, J. - (1.) This special appeal has been filed under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of Court against an order dated 18-1-1972 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on a miscellaneous application praying for interim relief filed by the appellant in Writ Petition No. 1922 of 1971. It appears that a writ petition was filed by the appellant in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying in the main for a writ of mandamus. Along with the writ petition was also filed an application for interim relief seeking permission to join the Survey and Land Records Training School at Hardoi subject to the result of the writ petition. This application was rejected by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 18-1-1972.
(2.) The first question arising for determination is whether the special appeal is maintainable against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 18-1-1972 in terms of Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of Court. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and we are clearly of the opinion that a special appeal does not against an interlocutory order under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of Court. In the case of Radhey Shyam v. State of U.P., 1970 ALJ 735 it was held that the settled view of this Court is that interlocutory orders are not appealable under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of Court. There is no manner of doubt that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge was passed on an application for interim relief and was therefore an interlocutory order. In the case of Gopal Behari Kapoor v. District, Magistrate, Elah, 1967 ALJ 990 a Division Bench of this Court held that an order granting or vacating an interim order in a pending writ petition does no amount to a judgment and is therefore not appealable under clause 10 of Letters Patent of the Allahabad High Court or under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of Court. In the case of Sri Iftikhar Husain v. Sri Sharafat Ullah, Special Appeal No. 628 of 1966, Decided on 20th December, 1961 another Division Bench of this Court observed that an order granting or refusing an interim order of stay does not decide any question of right and does not amount to a judgment. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the case of Khurshed Bagh Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Lucknow v. Smt. Satya Devi, 1971 ALJ 223 for supporting his argument that the impugned order of the learned Single in the present case amounted to a judgment for purposes of Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the Rules of Court. In the case of Khurshed Bagh Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Lucknow v. Smt. Satya Devi, 1971 ALJ 223 it was observed that if the impugned order amounts to a judgment having finally disposed of the matter in issue a special appeal shall be entertainable. We are of opinion, applying the test which was laid down in the case of Khurshed Bagh Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Lucknow the impugned order of the learned Single Judge does not amount to a judgment within the meaning of Rule 5, Chapter VIII of the Rules of Court as it does not in our view finally determine the matter in issue. This authority therefore does not lay down anything which may be of assistance to the appellant in this case. We, therefore, hold and decide that the impugned order does not amount to a judgment within the meaning of Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the Rules of court, it being an interlocutory order against which no special appeal lies. Upon that view we hold that this appeal not maintainable.
(3.) The special appeal is therefore summarily dismissed.;