D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) In this appeal an ad interim order passed on November 6, 2003 in WP No. 2100 of 2003 has since been challenged. The ad interim order is couched in the order with the following expression, "There will be an ad interim order in terms of prayer (a) of the petition".
(2.) Mr. Panja took a preliminary objection that this appeal is not maintainable in view of the subsequent order passed on December 18, 2003. He drew our attention to the text of the order viz: "By consent of the parties, time to file the affidavit-in-opposition is extended till one week after the Christmas Vacation; reply, if any, two weeks thereafter. Let the matter appear as part heard on February 5, 2004. Interim order will continue until further order of this Court." and contended that the interim order was extended by consent and, therefore, it is no more open to the appellant to press this appeal.
(3.) We are unable to accede to this contention since the interim order was not a limited one, which required to be extended as it appears from the order appealed against as quoted above. Therefore, the extension recorded in the order dated December 18,2003, is superfluous. Therefore, the question of consent would not preclude the appellant from pressing this appeal.;