K. SHIVASHANKAR BHAT, J. ( 1 ) THE first appellant before us sought to refer to the notes of inspection available with him while deposing, regarding the contents of the several documents of which he had taken inspection. Those documents were not available for being produced in the court, in a proceeding under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the act' for short ). The learned company judge did not permit the appellant to refer to the notes made by the first appellant. This disallowance is challenged in appeal o. s. a. 7 of 1992. Earlier the appellants had sought to produce those notes as evidence in their case. The learned company judge held that the notes were not true copies of the documents and therefore these notes cannot be availed of to prove the contents of the originals. O. s. a. 13 of 1992 is against the said order. The appeals are under Section 483 of the Companies Act. When the appeals came up for admission we pointed out that the orders under appeal are only orders made on procedural matters and the right of the parties are not affected by these orders and consequently the appeals may not be maintainable. Elaborate arguments were addressed by the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents on this aspect. ( 2 ) THE question before us is, therefore, whether these appeals are maintainable. ( 3 ) UNDER Section 483, appeals lie from "any order made or decision given in the matter of winding up of a company". The contention of the appellant is that, this creates a wide and broad appellate jurisdiction, and every kind of judicial order could be challenged in appeal. ( 4 ) IN shankarlal aggarwal and others v shankarlal poddarand others, a similar provision under the earlier Companies Act, 1913 came up for consideration. The learned company judge had confirmed sale of assets held by the official liquidator; this order was reversed by the division bench in an appeal under Section 202 of the old act. An order confirming sale was held to be an appealable order by the Supreme Court. The process of confirming a sale involves exercise of discretion and it was a judicial order and hence held to be appealable. This reasoning is adopted by Mr. An order confirming sale was held to be an appealable order by the Supreme Court. The process of confirming a sale involves exercise of discretion and it was a judicial order and hence held to be appealable. This reasoning is adopted by Mr. Udaya holla, to contend that an order refusing to admit a document in evidence or an order disallowing a party to refresh himself by referring to the notes available with him, while giving evidence, is a discretionary Order, which is also a judicial order and hence an appeal lies immediately from that order. At page 511, the Supreme Court observed :". . . . One of the tests would be whether a matter which involves the exercise of discretion is left for the decision of the authority, particularly if that authority were a court, and if the discretion has to be exercised on objective, as distinguished from a purely subjective, consideration, it would be a judicial decision. It has some times been said that the essence of a judicial proceeding or of a judicial order is that there should be two parties and a us between them which is the subject of adjudication, as a result of that order or a decision on an issue between a proposal and an opposition. No doubt, it would not be possible to describe an order passed deciding a us before the authority, that it' is not a judicial order but it does not follow that the absence of a us necessarily negatives the order being judicial. Even viewed from this narrow standpoint it is possible to hold that there was a us before the company judge which he decided by passing the order. "supreme Court affirmed the decision of chagla, c. j. in bachharaj factories ltd. V hirjee mills ltd. , as to the applicability of clause 15 of the letters patent and to what extent it would control the appeal under Section 202 of the Companies Act, 1913. It is in this context of the letters patent, the Bombay high court decision was approved, wherein, it was held that an order of adjournment made under Section 170 (now Section 443) was appealable and only the procedural aspects of the appeal, were governed by the letters patent. It is in this context of the letters patent, the Bombay high court decision was approved, wherein, it was held that an order of adjournment made under Section 170 (now Section 443) was appealable and only the procedural aspects of the appeal, were governed by the letters patent. To appreciate the decision of the Bombay high court, it is necessary to note that an order of adjournment under the old Section 170 itself is an order on merits of a winding up petition and would affect the rights of the petitioner immediately. It is not a mere procedural matter and it cannot be equated to an order adjourning a case in the exercise of court's ordinary jurisdiction; an order under Section 170 (now Section 443) is a statutory order. In shankarlal's case at page 513, Supreme Court while referring to the decision of chagla, c,j. , said that such an order or decision referred in old Section 202 itself indicates that the order or decision was not merely procedural in character but that which affected the rights of parties. At page 514, the Supreme Court held :"we also agree with the learned judges of the Bombay high court that the words "order or decision" occurring in the 1st part of Section 202 though wide, would exclude merely procedural order or those which do not affect the rights or liabilities of parties. "therefore it is quite clear that the order or decision referred in the present Section 483, though wide, would exclude procedural orders or those which do not affect the rights or liabilities of parties. ( 5 ) QUESTION, therefore, is whether the orders under appeal before us are orders which are merely procedural orders and whether they affect the rights of the parties. ( 6 ) IN the central bank of India ltd. V gokal chand, the Supreme Court was concerned with Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, which provided for an appeal from every order of controller. The Supreme Court held that the phrase 'every order" is not so wide as to include interlocutory orders which are merely procedural and had not affected the rights or liabilities of the parties. At page 800 it was observed thus :"the object of Section 38 (1) is to give a right of appeal to a party aggrieved by some order which affects his right or liability. At page 800 it was observed thus :"the object of Section 38 (1) is to give a right of appeal to a party aggrieved by some order which affects his right or liability. In the context of Section 38 (1), the words 'every order of the controller made under this act', though very wide, do not include interlocutory orders, which are merely procedural and do not affect the rights or liabilities of the parties. In a pending proceeding, the controller may pass many interlocutory orders under sections 36 and 37, such as orders regarding the summoning of witnesses, discovery, production and inspection of documents, issue of a commission for examination of witnesses, inspection of premises, fixing a date of hearing and the admissibility of a document or the relevancy of a question. All these interlocutory orders are steps taken towards the final adjudication and for assisting the parties in the prosecution of their case in the pending proceeding: they regulate the procedure only and do not affect any right or liability of the parties. The legislature could not have intended that the parties would be harassed with endless expenses and delay by appeals from such procedural orders. It is open to any party to set forth the error, defect or irregularity, if any, in such an order as a ground of objection in his appeal from the final order in the main proceeding. Subject to the aforesaid limitation, an appeal lies to the rent control tribunal from every order passed by the controller under the act. Even an interlocutory order passed under Section 37 (2) is an order passed under the act and is subject to appeal under Section 38 (1) provided it affects some right or liability of any party. Thus, an order of the rent controller refusing to set aside an ex parte order is subject to appeal to the rent control "tribunal. " the Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in shankarlal aggarwal's case, referred already by us above. Thus, an order of the rent controller refusing to set aside an ex parte order is subject to appeal to the rent control "tribunal. " the Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in shankarlal aggarwal's case, referred already by us above. In the central bank of india's case, it was pointed out that orders regarding the summoning of witnesses, discovery, production and inspection of documents, issue of a commission, inspection of premises, fixing a date of hearing and the admissibility of a document or the relevancy of a question are all interlocutory orders and are steps taken towards final adjudication and they regulate the procedure only; they do not affect any right or liability of the parties. In fact if any of those orders materially affect the rights and liabilities by virtue of the ultimate order of the court, the validity of those interlocutory orders could be challenged later in the appeal against the final order. The observations of the Supreme Court in central bank of india's case would equally govern the relevant words used in Section 483 of the Companies Act, in fact central bank of india's case refers to the earlier shankarlal aggarwal's case. Mr. Udaya holla relied on a bench decision of this court in Vijaya Bank Employees' Housing Cooperative Society Ltd. V C. Sriniuasa Raju and it was contended that the appellants right to adduce evidence is adversely affected in the instant case and therefore the appeals are maintainable. The division bench observed thus : "thus it is clear that an interlocutory order in a suit or proceeding can be held to be a 'case decided' if by such an order there is an adjudication for the purpose of the suit or proceeding some right or obligation of the parties thereto in controversy but not every order passed in the course of a suit or proceeding irrespective of the fact whether it decides some right or obligation of the parties in controversy. In the course of a suit or proceeding, several orders are passed by the court trying a suit or proceeding. Every such order cannot be held to decide some right or obligation of the parties. However, there are several orders passed during the course of a suit or proceeding affecting the rights and obligations of the parties to the suit or proceeding. Such rights may be substantive rights or procedural rights. Every such order cannot be held to decide some right or obligation of the parties. However, there are several orders passed during the course of a suit or proceeding affecting the rights and obligations of the parties to the suit or proceeding. Such rights may be substantive rights or procedural rights. Order 26 of the c. p. code deals with commissions. It is open to a party to adduce evidence to prove the case pleaded by it or defence set up by it, as the case may be, by adducing oral and or documentary evidence directly before the court. Certain evidence can properly be adduced by local investigation conducted by a commission. Even the oral evidence in some cases, a party or a witness is entitled to have the same recorded through a commission. Order 26 of the c. p. code itself provides for issuing commissions to examine witnesses and for local investigations. For scientific investigation, performance of ministerial act and sale of moveable property and to examine accounts, to make partition etc. Thus order 26 of the c. p. code gives a right to a party to the suit to have a commission issued for the aforesaid purposes, if the party seeking appointment of commission satisfies the conditions laid dawn in order 26 of the c. p. code, he is entitled to have the commission appointed for the purposes mentioned in order 26 of the c. p. code. If the court below rejects the request for appointment of a commission in a case where the requirements for appointment of a commission are satisfied, undoubtedly, such an order would affect the right of a party to the suit to adduce evidence, if a witness is entitled to be examined on commission and the court refuses to issue a commission to record the evidence of a witness, not only the right of a party to the suit is affected, the eight of a witness to be examined on commission is affecteds". the above observations may be compared with the observations of the Supreme Court in central bank of india's case, and theoretically it is difficult to reconcile the observations of the bench of this court with that of the Supreme Court. the above observations may be compared with the observations of the Supreme Court in central bank of india's case, and theoretically it is difficult to reconcile the observations of the bench of this court with that of the Supreme Court. However, it is unnecessary for us to go into the said aspect because the observations of this court quoted above could be distinguished for the present on the ground that the division bench of this court was concerned with the scope of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 7 ) IN bant singh gill v shanti devi and others, again the relevant provision of the Delhi Rent Control Act came up for consideration. The trial court had held in the said case that the suit had not abated. Supreme court held that it was an interlocutory order and cannot be considered as an appealable order immediately. Whether the suit stood abated could be considered in an appeal from the ultimate Order, in case the party becomes aggrieved by the ultimate order. ( 8 ) THE rights and liabilities of the parties normally would be decided by the final order. Very rarely the interlocutory order would affect the rights of the parties. Mr. Holla contended that admission of an appeal is a matter of right and referred to decision of the Supreme Court in shanta genevienue pommerat and another v sakal papers pvt. Ltd. And others. This decision is based on the rules of Bombay high court. Further the Supreme Court has not stated that an appeal should be admitted even in a case where an appeal is not maintainable. ( 9 ) IN c. m. desouza v s. b. billimoria, it was held that an order refusing an application for the inspection and copies of statements of persons examined under Section 296 is appealable under the Provisions of the Companies Act. It is unnecessary for us to consider this decision in view of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in shankarlal aggarwal's case. Several other decisions cited pertain to the concept of "case decided" under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence we do not propose to consider them. In t. n. habib khan v arogya mary shanthi lucien, it was held that an order admitting documents is appealable since it affects the rights and liabilities of aggrieved party. Several other decisions cited pertain to the concept of "case decided" under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence we do not propose to consider them. In t. n. habib khan v arogya mary shanthi lucien, it was held that an order admitting documents is appealable since it affects the rights and liabilities of aggrieved party. We fail to understand as to how admitting a document would affect the rights of the party immediately and why the aggrieved person should not wait till the disposal of the matter and in case the final order goes against the party he may challenge the earlier order also while challenging the final order. With utmost respect of the learned judge we are of the view that the decision runs counter to the observations of the Supreme Court in central bank of india's case, wherein specifically Supreme Court held that the order regarding the admissibility of a document is an interlocutory order and does not affect any right or liability of the parties. Mr. Holla then contended that if the interlocutory order could be challenged in the appeal filed against the final order it means that interlocutory order is also an appealable order and if so, under Section 483 the aggrieved person can challenge the said order immediately. This argument actually is an argument to overcome the observations of the Supreme Court in central bank of india's case. An interlocutory order may not ultimately affect the rights of the parties, in the sense that the final order may go in his favour. In such a situation it is immaterial as to what happened at the interlocutory stage. It is in that sense it has to be understood that the interlocutory order cannot be challenged unless it affects the rights and liabilities of the parties. A document may be wrongly admitted by the court overruling the objections, the objector may be temporarily aggrieved by this order. But ultimately it may so happen that the objector may succeed in the litigation; if so, it is entirely immaterial whether his earlier objection was upheld or overruled. No doubt an interlocutory order governing the procedural matters may sometimes create procedural difficulties to a party, but the purpose of an appeal is not to set-right every procedural defect. The course of a litigation should normally proceed unhampered. No doubt an interlocutory order governing the procedural matters may sometimes create procedural difficulties to a party, but the purpose of an appeal is not to set-right every procedural defect. The course of a litigation should normally proceed unhampered. If at every stage the appellate court has to entertain an appeal there cannot be a speedy culmination of the litigation at all. It is with a view to expedite the trial and conclusion of a litigation before the original authority or court, the Supreme Court has limited the scope of the appellate jurisdiction in the manner stated in shankarlal's case as well as in central bank of india's case. It was also contended before us that the learned company judge was not right in rejecting the request of the appellants either to produce the notes in evidence or to refer to them to refresh the memory of the witness. We do not propose to go into these questions because these questions are most appropriately to be considered in case an occasion arises in future for the appellate bench to entertain an appeal against the final order made in the proceedings pending before the learned company judge. ( 10 ) CONSEQUENTLY, we hold that these appeals are not maintainable. They are accordingly dismissed without expressing any opinion on the merits of the questions. --- *** --- .