Interim relief cannot replicate final relief, and purely interlocutory orders remain non-appealable under the statutory bar.

Interim relief cannot be used to grant the substantive relief sought in a writ petition at the threshold, especially where the interim prayer is in substance identical to the final relief and would dispose of the main controversy. A purely interlocutory order that does not finally adjudicate the lis or determine vested rights is also not appealable under the proviso to Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006. The challenge to the refusal of stay was therefore found not maintainable, leaving the writ petition to proceed on its own merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether interim relief could be granted where it would practically amount to the main relief sought in the writ petition; (ii) whether an appeal lay against an interlocutory order in view of the proviso to Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006.

Issue (i): Whether interim relief could be granted where it would practically amount to the main relief sought in the writ petition.

Analysis: The relief sought in the interlocutory application was in substance identical to the substantive relief claimed in the writ petition, namely, restraint on recovery and stay of the assessment demand pending disposal of the writ petition. Interim jurisdiction cannot be used to secure the final relief at the threshold, particularly where the prayers in the writ petition themselves show that the requested interim order would dispose of the principal controversy. The governing principle is that a court should not, by interim order, grant what is effectively the final relief.

Conclusion: Interim relief could not be granted in the form sought, as it would amount to granting the principal relief at the interim stage.

Issue (ii): Whether an appeal lay against an interlocutory order in view of the proviso to Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 2(1) bars appeals against interlocutory orders. Only those interim orders which are not purely interlocutory, but which finally affect rights or have an element of finality attached to them, can be appealed against. The order under challenge was a simple interim order refusing stay in pending writ proceedings and did not finally adjudicate the lis or determine any vested rights. It therefore fell within the statutory bar.

Conclusion: No appeal lay against the impugned interim order, and the appeal was not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the interim refusal of stay was rejected on maintainability, leaving the writ proceedings to be pursued on their own merits.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal is barred under the proviso to Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 against a purely interlocutory order that does not finally affect rights or carry an element of finality, and interim relief cannot be used to grant the substantive relief sought in the writ petition.

---