(1) LEAVE granted. (2) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 15-4-1998 passed by the Bombay High Court by which the High Court, while admitting the appeal from the order of the Single Judge, passed an interim order directing the appellants to pay royalty at a rate higher than the rate fixed by the Single Judge. (3) IT may be stated that Bank of Baroda had filed a suit against the appellants who were arrayed as Defendants 1 and 2 in that suit, for recovery of the principal amount of rupees one crore together with interest accrued thereon totalling to one crore fifty-three lakhs, in the Bombay High Court. The learned Single Judge, by his order dated 16-6-1996, appointed the Receiver of the High Court of Bombay as the Receiver of the two residential flats Nos. 201 and 202, Shalimar Apartments, Cumballa Hill, Bombay and two offices bearing Nos. 29 and 32, Kala Bhavan, Mathew Road, Bombay. The Receiver by order dated 14-3-1997 determined the amount payable by the appellants as monthly royalty for Flat No. 201 (Rs. 45,000), Flat No. 202 (Rs. 50,000) and for Office No. 29 (Rs 55,000). (4) THE Bank not feeling satisfied with the above order took out Chamber Summons No. 671 of 1997 before the Single Judge of the Bombay High Court for enhancement of the monthly amount of royalty in respect of Flats Nos. 201 and 202 and Office No. 29. The Single Judge, by his order dated 25-9-1997, dismissed the chamber summons and confirmed the order passed by the Receiver. (5) BANK of Baroda, thereafter, filed an appeal before the Division Bench against the order dated 25-9-1997 passed by the Single Judge and on 15-4- 1998, while admitting the appeal, the Division Bench passed the impugned order by which the royalty amount has been fixed at rupees one lakh for each of these properties payable by the appellants to the Receiver. (6) ALTHOUGH, the impugned order is an interim order passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court and this Court does not usually entertain any appeal by special leave against an interim order, but since it has been contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that the appellants had also raised a preliminary objection before the Division Bench that the order passed by the Single Judge was not a "judgment" within the meaning of Letters Patent and, therefore, an appeal was not maintainable, we have, having regard to the other circumstances of the case, granted leave and entertained this appeal. (7) SINCE the question about the maintainability of the appeal against the interim order, passed by the Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, was specifically raised on behalf of the appellants in the High Court, the Division Bench before proceeding to determine the amount of royalty, ought to have decided the preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the appeal. This having not been done, the ends of justice, we feel, have suffered. (8) CONSEQUENTLY, the order dated 15-4-1998, passed by the Division Bench, is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The Division Bench of the High Court may now proceed to dispose of the objection raised by the appellants as to the maintainability of the appeal. It will be open to the High Court, at the same time, to dispose of the whole of the appeal on merits. Meanwhile, the appellants shall pay the royalty amount at the rate fixed by the trial Judge. (9) WE request the High Court to dispose of the appeal within six months.