Halsbury’s Laws of England defines the term interlocutory Order as under:
“An order which does not deal with the final rights of the parties, but either:
(1) is made before judgment and gives no final decision on the matter in dispute but is merely on a matter of procedure or
(2) is made after judgment and merely directs how the declarations of right already given in the final judgment are to be worked out s termed “interlocutory”. An interlocutory order, though not conclusive of the main dispute, may be conclusive as to the subordinate matter with which it deals.”
In Amar Nath and Others v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1977 SC 2185, it was held as under:
“The term interlocutory order denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or the liabilities of the parties. Any order which substantially affects the rights of the accused or decides certain rights of the parties cannot be said to be an interlocutory order so as to bar a revision to the High Court against that order.”
The word “interlocutory order” as defined in the Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 1997 Edition, is an order made pending the cause and before a final hearing is concluded on merits. Such an order is made to secure some end and purpose necessary and essential to the progress of the litigation and generally collateral to the issues framed by the pleadings and not connected with the final judgment. It has been termed as a purely interim or temporary nature of an order which does not include the important rights and liabilities of the parties.
The word intermediate order as defined in the Law Lexicon is an order granted before entry of judgment, made between the commencement of an action and the final pronouncement. The word ‘Intermedium’ means between or in the middle. It is something intermediate in position or an intervening action or performance before the final conclusion. That which is situated or occurring between two things is intermediate. It holds the middle place or degree between two extremes interposed in between.
Interlocutory Order and Intermediate Order – Distinction Between
The distinction between the two would be that the former does not bring about any consequence of moment and is an aid in the performance of the final act. It does not affect any existing rights finally or to the disadvantage of either extremes. An intermediate order can touch upon the rights of the parties or be an order of moment so as to affect any of the rival parties or be an order of moment so as to affect any of the rival parties by its operation. Such an order affecting the rights of a person or tending to militate against either of the parties even at the subordinate stage can be termed as an intermediate or an intermediary order.
The term “final order” means a decision finally affecting the rights of the contending parties. It is an issue which goes to the foundation of a trial and can never be questioned if it has been allowed to stand. It would therefore be final. The test of such finality would depend upon the facts of a case indicating termination of proceedings and ultimately affecting the fate of the parties. A final order is one which leaves nothing more to be decided by its own force.
The word ‘Final’ connotes that which comes at the end. It marks the last stage of a process leaving nothing to be looked for or expected. It is something ultimate in nature. It puts an end to something or in other words, it brings to a close any strife or uncertainty. It is the conclusion of an event, that which comes last. It connotes the finishing of some act and completion of some beginning. It does not allow the inclusion of anything or something that might be possible thereafter. A decisive stroke that cannot be reversed or altered is final.
Maintainability of Revision
Thus it would depend on the facts and circumstances of each separate individual case where the revising authority will have to examine as to whether the Magistrate has proceeded to exercise his judicious discretion well within his jurisdiction or has travelled beyond the same, keeping in view the various shades of litigation in such matters where the Apex Court and the High Court has held that an intermediate order, which is not necessarily an interlocutory order, could be subjected to revision. An order not conclusive of the main dispute, but conclusive of the subordinate matters with which it deals is not a purely interlocutory order even though it may not finally adjudicate the main dispute between the parties. Therefore a revision would not be barred under sub-section (1) of Section 397 of the Code if the orders impugned before the revising authority fall within the tests indicated above. It was further held that orders under Section 145(1) and 146(1) of the Code are not in every circumstance, orders simplicitor, and therefore a revision would be maintainable depending upon the facts involved in each case. Munna Singh v. State of U.P. and others, (2012) 1 UPLBEC 1 (Full Bench).