Interlocutory orders affecting vital rights can qualify as judgments and remain appealable despite their non-final form.

An interlocutory order is not outside the scope of a judgment merely because it is not final. The controlling test is whether the order decides matters of moment, affects vital and valuable rights of the parties, or causes serious injustice. Applying that principle, refusal to allow amendment of the written statement at the stage of framing issues was held to have a direct bearing on the parties' rights and to be amenable to appellate scrutiny. The appeal was therefore maintainable, the High Court should have examined it on merits, and the matter was remitted for appellate consideration according to law.

---

---

Issues: Whether an order refusing amendment of the written statement at the stage of framing issues was a judgment and therefore appealable; and whether the appeal ought to have been entertained on merits.

Analysis: An interlocutory order is not excluded from the category of judgment merely because it is not final. The relevant test is whether the order decides matters of moment, affects vital and valuable rights of the parties, or works serious injustice. Applying that principle, an order declining amendment of the written statement at the stage of framing issues was held to have a direct bearing on the parties' rights and could not be treated as a purely interlocutory order beyond appellate scrutiny.

Conclusion: The appeal was maintainable, the High Court erred in refusing to examine it on merits, and the matter was remitted to the Division Bench to admit the appeal and decide it according to law.

Final Conclusion: The order under challenge was set aside and the case was sent back for appellate consideration on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: An order that affects vital and valuable rights of the parties or causes serious injustice may amount to a judgment and be appealable even if it is interlocutory in form.

---