JUDGMENT : N. Paul Vasantha Kumar, J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the order made in OWP No. 2301/2015, dated 09.06.2016 impleading the private respondent as a party in the writ petition. In the application seeking impleadment, the private respondent has claimed that she is the owner of the land in dispute and it is alleged that petitioners encroached upon the land in the year 2001 for which FIR has been lodged against the petitioners. 2. By allowing the application and impleading the private respondent as party to the writ petition, the rights of the petitioners would not be prejudiced in any manner and in fact it will facilitate to arrive at a correct finding. Further no finality of proceedings has been reached determining the rights of the parties to challenge the said order in appeal. 3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2006) 5 SCC 399 (Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda), while considering a similar issue has held thus:- 16. Interim orders/interlocutory orders passed during the pendency of a case, fall under one or the other of the following categories: (i) Orders which finally decide a question or issue in controversy in the main case. (ii) Orders which finally decide an issue which materially and directly affects the final decision in the main case. (iii) Orders which finally decide a collateral issue or question which is not the subject matter of the main case. (iv) Routine orders which are passed to facilitate the progress of the case till its culmination in the final judgment. (v) Orders which may cause some inconvenience or some prejudice to a party, but which do not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties. The term 'judgment' occurring in clause 15 of the Letters Patent will take into its fold not only the judgments as defined in Section 2(9) CPC and orders enumerated in Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC, but also other orders which, though may not finally and conclusively determine the rights of parties with regard to all or any matters in controversy, may have finality in regard to some collateral matter, which will affect the vital and valuable rights and obligations of the parties. Interlocutory orders which fall under categories (i) to (iii) above, are, therefore, 'judgments' for the purpose of filing appeals under the Letters Patent. Interlocutory orders which fall under categories (i) to (iii) above, are, therefore, 'judgments' for the purpose of filing appeals under the Letters Patent. On the other hand, orders falling under categories (iv) and (v) are not 'judgments' for purpose of filing appeals provided under the Letters Patent. The order under appeal is coming under category (v) hence the same is not a judgment for the purpose of filing Letters Patent Appeal. In the light of the above findings the appeal is not maintainable and is dismissed. No costs.