Interlocutory procedural orders may be reconsidered when no final rights are by the earlier direction.

A procedural interlocutory order that does not finally determine rights may be reconsidered, and belated procedural compliance may be allowed where no prejudice is caused to the opposite party. The Bombay High Court accepted that the DRT's refusal to condone delay in filing a claim affidavit was only a procedural direction, not a final adjudication on the merits, and upheld the DRAT's decision to receive the affidavit. The Court noted the earlier forfeiture order, the resumption of tribunal functioning, the affidavit's readiness, and the opportunity given to the petitioner to reply, concluding that no interference was warranted and the proceedings should continue expeditiously.

---

---

Issues: Whether the DRAT was justified in setting aside the DRT order refusing condonation of delay in filing the claim affidavit and directing receipt of the claim affidavit.

Analysis: The challenged DRT order was a procedural direction and not an adjudication on the merits of the lis. The delay application had to be viewed in the context of the earlier forfeiture order, the subsequent resumption of the tribunal's functioning, and the fact that the claim affidavit was ready. The Court accepted the DRAT's view that permitting the affidavit would not prejudice the financial institution, since the main proceeding would still be decided on the evidence and the petitioner was given an opportunity to file a reply. The order relied on the principle that an interlocutory order which does not determine rights finally does not attain such finality as to preclude reconsideration in appropriate circumstances.

Conclusion: The DRAT's order was upheld and no interference was called for; the belated claim affidavit was permitted to be taken on record.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition did not succeed on the challenge to the DRAT's order, while ancillary directions were issued to expedite the proceedings before the DRT.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural interlocutory order that does not decide the merits of the dispute does not attain such finality as to bar reconsideration, and belated procedural compliance may be permitted where no prejudice is caused to the opposite party.

---