JUDGMENT By the Court.—This special appeal arises from the order of the Hon’ble Single Judge dated 1.12.2006 whereby the interim order has been granted staying the operation of the order dated 18.11.2006 impugned in the writ petition preferred by the respondents. 2. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the Hon’ble Single Judge without recording any reason granted interim order and therefore the same cannot be sustained. He placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India and others v. Rama Dental College, Hospital and Research Centre, Kanpur Nagar and another, 2006 (10) ADJ 7 and in Special Appeal No. 1054 of 2006, Shamsher Singh v. Bindhyavasini Singh and others, decided on 14.9.2006 wherein it has been held that any interim order containing no reasons cannot be sustained. 3. On the other hand, Sri I.R. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner-respondents opposes the appeal and submitted that the same is not maintainable as the order under appeal is an interim order against which no appeal lies under Chapter-VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court. He further placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment in the case of Society Madarsa Mazahir Uloom Mubarak Shab, Saharanpur v. Muzaffar Hussain, 1994 (1) UPLBEC 277 and sought to argue that the special appeal under the Rules of the Court is maintainable only against the judgment and not against an interim order and right of appeal being a statutory right, in the absence of any such right conferred by the statute, this appeal is not maintainable. 4. We have considered the submissions. No doubt under Chapter-VIII Rule-5 of the Rules of the Court special appeal lies against a judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge. However in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben, AIR 1981 SC 1786 , the Apex Court observed that the word “judgment” under Clause 15 of Letters Patent must receive a wider and more liberal interpretation than the word “judgment” used in the Code of Civil Procedure. At the same time it cannot be said that any order passed by a trial Judge would amount to a judgment. At the same time it cannot be said that any order passed by a trial Judge would amount to a judgment. Elaborating the issue the Court held where some issue is decided which has the characteristics and trappings of finality on the issue or the proceedings or that order affects valuable rights of the parties etc., it would be a judgment and appeal would lie. Therefore, it would not be right to contend that against any kind of interim order no appeal would lie even though it does not contain any reason for exercise of discretion while granting interim order. In order to ascertain the nature of an interim order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge as to whether it amounts to a judgment or not, it is necessary while granting or refusing interim relief that the Court should record reasons to show as to what persuaded it for grant or refusal of interim relief. An interim order is granted only upon the Court being satisfied that prima facie a case is made out, and normally merely by asking, it is not granted. Therefore, while exercising discretion in favour of grant of interim order, reasons must be spelt out in the order. Our above view is supported by Division Bench judgments of this Court in Rama Dental College (supra) and Shamsher Singh (supra). This Bench in Special Appeal No. 1283 of 2006, Committee of Management and another v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 7.11.2006 reiterated that reasons must be given while passing an interim order. 5. We, therefore, in the absence of any reason in the order for grant of such interim relief are not inclined to accept the contention of Sri I.R. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner-respondents. Since the order under appeal does not contain any reason whatsoever, in view of the aforesaid exposition of law the order under appeal cannot sustain and therefore, set aside. However, since the matter is fixed on 8.1.2007 i.e. Monday next before the Hon’ble Single Judge, we hope that the Hon’ble Single Judge will hear the application for interim relief again and thereafter pass the order, or the Hon’ble Single Judge may decide the writ petition itself on merit subject to other business of the Court. With the above observations this special appeal stands disposed of. 6. With the above observations this special appeal stands disposed of. 6. It is also provided that till the matter regarding grant of interim relief or the writ petition is decided, whichever is earlier, the appellant shall not take any major decision in respect of appointment and shall not operate the accounts except for meeting day to day expenses for running the institution. ————