Judgment : M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This Original Side Appeal has been filed against the order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 22.7.2013, made in Application No.2993 of 2013. 2. Paragraph No.5 of the order, dated 22.7.2013, passed by the learned single Judge, reads as follows:- "5. Therefore, issue notice to the respondent returnable by two weeks. Private notice is permitted. In the meantime, the respondent shall either take the existing stock lying with the applicant after preparing a report signed by both parties, as to the condition of the vehicles or alternatively allot these vehicles to other existing dealers for sale. Any monetary claim that the parties may have against each other either during the exercise or arising out of the exercise, can always be adjudicated before the Arbitrator. Since the full value of these cars has already been debited to the account of the applicant, the question as to how such amount could be adjusted after the respondent takes back these cars, can be determined after hearing the respondent." 3. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is that the learned single Judge had passed the order, dated 22.7.2013, issuing a mandatory direction, as found in paragraph No.5 of the said order, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The further contention of the learned counsel is that the order passed by the learned single Judge is binding, and therefore, an appeal against the said order would lie before this Court. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that the order passed by the learned single Judge, on 22.7.2013, is only of an interim nature and that it would be open to the appellant to go before the learned single Judge, by filing an appropriate application, seeking to amend, modify or vary the order, dated 22.7.2013. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the learned single Judge, on 22.7.2013, is only an interim order and it would be open to the appellant to go before the learned single Judge, by filing an appropriate application, seeking to amend, modify or vary the order passed, on 22.7.2013. 6. 6. In such circumstances, we do not find it appropriate to interfere with the order, dated 22.7.2013, made in Application No.2993 of 2013. Hence, the Original Side Appeal stands dismissed, with liberty to the appellant to go before the learned single Judge, by filing an appropriate application, seeking to amend, modify or vary the order passed, on 22.7.2013. No costs. M.P.No.1 of 2013 is closed.