S. P. SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. 2. The learned Counsel for the contesting respondent, who has put in appearance at this stage, has also been heard. 3. The appellant feels aggrieved by an interlocutory order passed by the learned single Judge during the pendency of the writ petition which is awaiting final disposal. 4. In the interim order in question, the operation of the resolution dated 29-6-2003, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition, was directed to remain stayed. 5. The only submission urged and pressed in support of the present special appeal by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the interlocutory order in question ought not have been granted and if at all such an order could be available at the final disposal of the writ petition. 6. It has also been urged that no reason has been assigned for issusing such an interlocutory order. 7. An identical question had come up for consideration before a Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 585 of 2003 decided on 24-7- 2003. The Divisional Bench had set aside an interlocutory order of an identical nature. 8. Taking into consideration the nature of the pleadings as well as he reliefs claimed by the petitioner, we are of the view that the interim order of the nature passed by the learned Single Judge could, if at all, be available only at the time of disposal of the writ petition. 9. It may be noticed that in the decision in the case of U. P. Junior Doctors Action Committee and others v. Dr. B. Sheetal Nandwani and others, reported in JT 1992 (1) SC 571, the apex Court had indicated that it is a well known rule of practice and procedure that at an interlocutory stage a relief which is asked for and is available at the disposal of the matter is not granted unless there is very special reason to be indicated in clear terms in the interlocutory order itself. 10. We have searched in vain for any special reason in the impugned interlocutory order passed by the learned Single Judge. 10. We have searched in vain for any special reason in the impugned interlocutory order passed by the learned Single Judge. Further it should not be lost sight of that the purpose of an interlocutory order is to preserve the rights of the parties so that the proceedings do not become infructuous by any unilateral overt act by one side or the other during its pendency. 11. Moreover, an interlocutory order may be justified to prevent land, slide changes rendering the proceedings ineffective or infructuous. In the present case no such contingency could be pointed out. 12. The learned Counsel for the appellant states that counter- affidavit in opposition of the writ petition will be filed within 10 days. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within 2 days of the receipt of the counter- affidavit. 13. The impugned order contains the traits, trappings and qualities and characteristics of a final order. Although, the expression judgment has not been defined either in the letters patent or under the Rules of the Court but whatever tests may be applied, the order impugned in the present case clearly shows that the order has in it the traits and trapping of finality and taking into consideration its ultimate effect, has to be taken to be in the nature of a final order so as to fall within the definition of the judgment. 14. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances as brought on record, this special appeal is disposed of finally with a direction that the writ petition be listed for admission/final disposal before the appropriate Bench on 17-9- 2003 as jointly requested by the Counsel for the parties. 15. It will be open to the learned Single Judge to dispose of the application for interim relief afresh in accordance with law in case the writ petition is not disposed of finally on the next date fixed. Appeal disposed of. .