JUDGMENT Committee of Management of Kanpur Vidya Mandir Mahila (Post Graduate) College, Swaroop Nagar, Distt. Kanpur Nagar through its Secretary Dr. Dinesh Chandra Gupta is before this Court assailing the validity of the order dated 20.11.2015 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.63521 of 2015. The order passed by learned Single Judge reads as follows: - "Learned standing counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondents no.1, 2 and 4 to 6, Sri Neeraj Tiwari on behalf of respondent no.3 and Sri G.K. Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri V.K. Singh on behalf of respondent no.7. Issue notice to respondent no.8 fixing a date in the week commencing 14.12.2015. Steps to be taken within a week by registered post. All the respondents to file their counter affidavit before the next date fixed. Stay application shall be considered after exchange of affidavits." 2. On the matter being taken up today, Shri Ashok Khare, Sr. Advocate appearing along with Shri Irshad Ali, Advocate submitted before us that the case in hand was one, wherein interim order ought to have been passed by learned Single Judge on the first day instead of deferring the matter on the said date and proceeding to issue direction that stay application shall be considered after exchange of affidavits. 3. On the other hand Shri Neeraj Tiwari, Advocate representing the University concerned as well as Shri G.K. Singh, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri V.K. Singh contended that the order in question that has been so passed is merely a procedural order, wherein learned Single Judge intended to consider the stay application after pleadings have been exchanged so that clear cut picture is before the Court and in view of this once no decision has been taken and the matter has been deferred and the date has been fixed in the week commending 14.12.2015, as such no interference may be made by this Court at this juncture. 4. We have proceeded to consider the order dated 20th November, 2015 and what we find in the said order in question is that learned Single Judge in his wisdom has proceeded to provide opportunity of hearing to all the respondents to have their say in the matter that is why counter affidavit has been invited before the next date fixed and clear mention has been made that stay application shall be considered after exchange of affidavit. 5. 5. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ashutosh Shrotriya v. Vice-Chancellor, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, 2015 (8) ADJ 248 (FB) has observed as follows: - "We, accordingly, are of the view that a direction issued by the learned Single Judge in the course of the hearing of a writ petition, calling for the filing of a counter and a rejoinder or, in other words, for the completion of pleadings is a direction of a procedural nature, in aid of the ultimate progression of the case. The object and purpose of such a direction is to enable the Single Judge to have the considered benefit of a response to the petition so as to enable the Court to deal with an application of an interlocutory nature upon a fair consideration of the rival perspectives and eventually for the purpose of the disposal of the case at the final stage. A purely procedural direction of this nature would ordinarily not be amenable to the remedy of a special appeal even if the consequence of the issuance of such a direction is to cause some inconvenience or prejudice to one or other party. The Court, in order to decide a lis, either at the interlocutory or at a final stage, would generally require the benefit of a response filed by a party which would be affected by the order which is sought and the reliefs which are claimed. Compliance with the principles of natural justice is as much a safeguard for the parties as it is for the Court of having considered the matter in all its perspectives before rendering a final decision. If a party to the proceeding seeks to press an application for ad interim relief even before a reply is filed on grounds of extreme urgency or on the ground that the situation would be irreversibly altered or that irretrievable injustice would result unless a protective order is passed, such a submission must be urged before the Single Judge. If such a submission is urged, it must be recorded and dealt with however briefly to obviate a grievance that an application for ad interim relief was pressed but not dealt with. If such a submission is urged, it must be recorded and dealt with however briefly to obviate a grievance that an application for ad interim relief was pressed but not dealt with. A purely procedural direction of calling for a counter affidavit and rejoinder would not be amenable to a special appeal since it decides no rights and does not affect the vital and substantive rights of parties. However, the appellate court has the unquestioned jurisdiction to decide whether the direction is of a procedural nature against which a special appeal is not maintainable or whether the interlocutory order decides matters of moment or affects vital and valuable rights of parties and works serious injustice to the party concerned. Where the Division Bench in a special appeal is of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge is not just a procedural direction but would result in a grave detriment to substantive rights of an irreversible nature, the jurisdiction of the Court is wide enough to intervene at the behest of an aggrieved litigant. The Rules of Court are in aid of justice. We, therefore, affirm the principle that a purely processual order of the nature upon which the reference is made would not be amenable to a special appeal not being a judgement. The Division Bench will have to decide in the facts of each case, the nature of the order passed by a Single Judge while determining whether the appeal is maintainable." 6. As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court a purely procedural order of the nature upon which the reference is made would not be amenable to a special appeal not being a judgement. It has been left open that the Division Bench will have to decide in the facts of each case, the nature of the order passed by a Single Judge while determining whether the appeal is maintainable. The said Full Bench judgment of this Court has once again been followed in the case of Committee of Management, Public Inter College Rabupura & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2015 (10) ADJ 262 (DB), wherein also learned Single Judge has proceeded to pass order asking the parties to exchange the pleadings with direction that the case be listed thereafter. v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2015 (10) ADJ 262 (DB), wherein also learned Single Judge has proceeded to pass order asking the parties to exchange the pleadings with direction that the case be listed thereafter. The Division Bench in the said case proceeded to take a view that the said order in question is purely in the nature of procedural direction and in case the incumbent was aggrieved by the order of learned Single Judge, then his remedy was to approach the learned Single Judge afresh for seeking an order on the application of interim relief. 7. In the present case also, when we consider the order dated 20th November, 2015 on the parameters as has been laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Ashutosh Shrotriya v. Vice-Chancellor, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University (Supra) what we find that order that has been so passed, is purely procedural order and the same is on the same parameters as is provided under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC that before proceeding to grant injunction parties be heard. 8. In view of this, once the order in question has tenets of being procedural one and nothing has been decided and clear mention has been made that stay application shall be considered after exchange of affidavits, then no interference is required by us in the order of learned Single Judge. The special appeal is dismissed accordingly.