Interim orders with finality can be appealed, and denial of a chance to oppose stay vacation may justify limited protection.

An interim order is not treated as purely interlocutory if it materially affects party rights, bears on final adjudication, or has an element of finality; on that basis, the writ appeal was maintainable and the preliminary objection failed. Where a party was denied an opportunity to file a counter-affidavit against a stay-vacating application, that procedural prejudice justified limited interim protection. The direction permitting finalisation of the freight terminal project was therefore stayed pending further hearing, preserving the appellant's position until the writ petition was finally considered.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ appeal was barred as being directed against a purely interlocutory order under the proviso to Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006. (ii) Whether the appellant was entitled to interim protection against the portion of the impugned order permitting finalisation of the freight terminal project.

Issue (i): Whether the writ appeal was barred as being directed against a purely interlocutory order under the proviso to Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006.

Analysis: The applicable test is whether the impugned order is totally interlocutory in nature or whether it affects rights of the parties in a manner bearing on final adjudication and carries an element of finality. An order that vitally affects the rights of a party, or whose effect cannot be undone at the time of final hearing, is not treated as merely interlocutory. Here, the impugned order not only dealt with the application for vacating stay but also recorded prima facie findings affecting the merits and permitted the project to be finalised, which had a bearing on the writ petition.

Conclusion: The writ appeal was held to be maintainable and the preliminary objection was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant was entitled to interim protection against the portion of the impugned order permitting finalisation of the freight terminal project.

Analysis: The appellant was deprived of an opportunity to file a counter-affidavit opposing the application for vacating stay, which was treated as a valuable procedural right. The order permitting finalisation of the project, if allowed to continue, was considered capable of causing prejudice and of affecting the eventual adjudication of the writ petition. On that basis, limited interim protection was found appropriate pending further hearing.

Conclusion: The portion of the impugned order permitting respondents to proceed to finalise the project was stayed till the next date of hearing.

Final Conclusion: The appeal survived the maintainability challenge, and the appellant obtained limited interim relief against implementation of the impugned directions, while the matter was kept pending for further hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: An interim order is appealable when it materially affects the parties' rights or carries an element of finality, and denial of a fair opportunity to oppose a vacating application may justify limited interim protection.

---