Interlocutory order appeals depend on real effect and finality, not the label attached to the Single Judge's order.

The proviso to Section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 was construed as a qualifying exception to the general right of intra-court appeal, not an absolute bar against every interlocutory order. Maintainability depends on the real nature, tenor, effect and impact of the Single Judge's order, including whether it materially affects final rights, has sufficient finality, or causes serious injustice. A mere label of "interlocutory" is not decisive if the order substantially determines rights or influences the final outcome. The earlier view that no writ appeal lay against an interim order was overruled on this basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether the proviso to Section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 creates an absolute bar to an appeal against every interlocutory order passed by a Single Judge, or whether maintainability depends on the nature, tenor, effect and impact of the order.

Analysis: The main part of Section 2(1) confers a right of appeal from a judgment or order passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, while the proviso excludes interlocutory orders. The proviso was construed as qualifying the general right of appeal and not as nullifying it in every case. Applying settled principles of proviso interpretation and the line of authorities on the distinction between purely interlocutory orders and orders having finality or affecting vital rights, it was held that an order must be examined on its real character, effect and consequences. An order that materially affects the final decision, determines rights in a final way, or causes serious injustice is not barred merely because it is styled interlocutory.

Conclusion: The proviso does not impose an absolute bar. An appeal may lie depending on the nature, tenor, effect and impact of the Single Judge's order.

Final Conclusion: The earlier view holding that no writ appeal lay against an interim order was overruled, and the reference was answered by recognising maintainability of an intra-court appeal where the order has sufficient finality or substantial impact.

Ratio Decidendi: A proviso excluding interlocutory orders from an appellate provision must be read as a qualifying exception, and not as an absolute bar, so an intra-court appeal remains maintainable where the impugned order is not a mere routine interim order but one that materially affects rights or has the attributes of finality.

---