Interlocutory orders may still be appealable when they affect vital rights or carry finality under the appeal provision.

The proviso to Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 does not operate as an absolute bar against every interim order. Read with the main provision conferring a statutory appeal from a Single Judge's judgment or order in original Article 226 jurisdiction, the proviso excludes only orders that are truly interlocutory or supervisory under Article 227. An interim order is appealable if it decides matters of moment, affects valuable or vital rights, or has irreversible finality. Maintainability therefore depends on the nature, tenor, effect, and final character of the order, not merely on its interim form.

---

---

Issues: Whether the proviso to Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 creates an absolute bar against appeals from all interlocutory orders, and whether an interim order that affects vital rights or has an element of finality remains appealable.

Analysis: The main provision confers a statutory right of appeal from a Single Judge's judgment or order in exercise of original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, while the proviso excludes interlocutory orders and supervisory orders under Article 227. The Court applied settled principles that a proviso qualifies the main enactment and must be read with it, and that not every interim order is truly interlocutory. An order is not interlocutory if it decides matters of moment, affects valuable or vital rights, or has irreversible consequences that cannot be undone at final hearing. The Court therefore accepted that the proviso cannot be read as a blanket exclusion of every interim order, and that maintainability depends on the nature, tenor, effect, and finality of the order.

Conclusion: The proviso does not create an absolute bar. Appeals lie against interim orders that are not purely interlocutory, including orders affecting rights with finality, but not against orders that are wholly interlocutory in nature.

Concurring/Dissenting Opinion: Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. agreed that the proviso bars appeals against interlocutory orders, but declined to answer the wider question as to the categories of interlocutory orders, holding that it lay beyond the scope of the reference.

---