JUDGMENT (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Alok Kumar Verma) Aggrieved by the order dated 26.03.2021, passed by a learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 770 of 2021, the appellant has preferred the present Special Appeal. By the said order, the learned Single Judge had directed the matter to be listed after four weeks. It was further directed that “pendency of this writ petition will not preclude the bank authorities from recovering the loan amount." 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a cash credit limit/facility was granted in favour of the appellant sometime in 1993. In 2007-08 recovery proceedings were initiated by the bank against the appellant under the provisions of Uttarakhand Cooperative Societies Act, 2003. An ex parte award, dated 06.01.2010, was passed against the appellant to the tune of Rs. 19,20,841.59/-, along with the litigation cost of Rs. 19,209/-, totalling to Rs. 19,40,050.59/-. 3. The petitioner preferred an application to set aside the aforesaid ex parte award, dated 06.01.2010, which was allowed by order dated 11.03.2010. By order dated 23.04.2013 an award was passed by learned Arbitrator, i.e. Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Uttarakhand, Dehradun, whereby a decree of Rs. 19,20,841.59/- and litigation cost of Rs. 19,209/-, totalling to Rs. 19,40,050.59/- was passed against the appellant. 4. Aggrieved by the order dated 23.04.2013, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Cooperative Tribunal Uttarakhand, Dehradun, which registered as Appeal 06/2013 titled as “Ravindra Kumar Pant v. Almora Urban Cooperative Bank." By order dated 25.02.2020 the appeal was partially allowed, and N.P.A. date was determined to be 15.01.2001 instead 31.08.2007, and interest was to be calculated at the rate of 7% simple interest annually, and appeal was decreed for recovery of the remaining loan. 5. Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 25.02.2020, the appellant preferred a Review Petition before the learned Cooperative Tribunal, Dehradun, under Section 99(B)(1) of Uttarakhand Cooperative Societies Act, 2003, on the ground that recovery does not state the actual amount due to the petitioner, along with interest thereon. The respondent-bank filed its objections to the said review petition, and the matter is still pending. In the meanwhile, the Tehsildar, Almora issued a recovery citation against the appellant, dated 05.11.2020, to the tune of Rs. 26,19,290/- plus interest plus collection charges. 6. The respondent-bank filed its objections to the said review petition, and the matter is still pending. In the meanwhile, the Tehsildar, Almora issued a recovery citation against the appellant, dated 05.11.2020, to the tune of Rs. 26,19,290/- plus interest plus collection charges. 6. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application, dated 29.01.2021, before the Registrar Cooperative Societies for withdrawal of the certificate, issued under Section 92 of Uttarakhand Cooperative Societies Act, 2003. He further prayed that the District Assistant Registrar, Almora should be directed to withdraw the certificate issued by him, and thereafter communicate to the Collector, Almora, intimating the latter to withdraw the recovery certificate dated 05.11.2020. 7. The appellant also filed an application before Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Uttarakhand, Dehradun, under Section 105(2) of Uttarakhand Cooperative Societies Act, 2003, for grant of sanction for prosecution for offences committed under Section 103 of Uttarakhand Cooperative Societies Act, 2003. It is submitted that while it is the admitted position that the Review Petition preferred by the appellant is still pending, and the amount to be realized is still to be assessed and crystallized, the Secretary/General Manager of the respondent-bank ought not to have given an impression to the officer, officiating as the Assistant District Registrar, Cooperatives, Almora, to issue a recovery certificate to the tune of Rs. 26,19,290/- to be realized from the appellant as arrears of land revenue. 8. Consequent upon the application dated 29.01.2021, the learned Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Dehradun, issued show cause notice, dated 30.01.2021, to the Secretary/General Manager of the respondent-bank and the District Assistant Registrar, Almora with regard to the allegations and they were further directed to suspend the recovery proceedings against the petitioner. 9. Against the said show-cause notice dated 30.01.2021, the respondent-bank filed Writ Petition (M/S) No. 380 of 2021. By order dated 17.02.2021, a learned Single Judge stayed the operation of the notice dated 30.01.2021, insofar as it related to the recovery proceedings. 10. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies Uttarakhand, Dehradun, by order dated 01.03.2021, observed that the actual amount to be recovered by the bank is yet to be assessed, squared up, and has to be given final form. Yet, without even providing a copy of the reply received from the Opposite Party, and an opportunity of hearing, he erroneously proceeded to terminate its stay orders qua recovery citation dated 05.11.2020. 11. Yet, without even providing a copy of the reply received from the Opposite Party, and an opportunity of hearing, he erroneously proceeded to terminate its stay orders qua recovery citation dated 05.11.2020. 11. Since the appellant was aggrieved by the orders dated 05.11.2020 and 01.03.2021, he filed the present Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge. By its order dated 26.03.2021, the learned Single Judge directed the matter to be listed after four weeks. It was further observed that “pendency of this writ petition will not preclude the bank authorities from recovering the loan amount". Hence, the present Special Appeal before this Court. 12. Mr. Suhaas Ratna Joshi, the learned counsel for the appellant, has raised the following contentions before this Court :- (1) The order impugned is in the nature of final relief to the respondent bank, which is premature and harsh to the appellant. (2) The said recovery cannot be issued under the provisions of the Uttarakhand Cooperative Societies Rules, 2004, therefore, the impugned recovery is based on award without jurisdiction. (3) The impugned order is in judicial haste. (4) The unfair treatment and clandestine disposal of assets put additional financial burden on the appellant. (5) The conduct of the bank authorities is in blatant disregard of doctrine of utmost good faith. (6) The Cooperative Tribunal did not ascertain the amount to be paid and neither considered moderation of amount against unfair disposal of assets of the appellant by bank authorities. (7) The Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to pass the Award. 13. On the other hand Mr. B.P.S. Mer, the learned Brief Holder for the State, and, Mr. Siddhartha Sah, the learned counsel for the private respondent no.6, opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant and raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this Special Appeal. 14. This Special Appeal has been filed under Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. 15. Before we examine the contentions of both the parties, it is necessary to consider the scope of Rule 5 of the Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, which makes provisions for an intra-court appeal. Rule 5 of the Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 reads as under :- “5. 15. Before we examine the contentions of both the parties, it is necessary to consider the scope of Rule 5 of the Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, which makes provisions for an intra-court appeal. Rule 5 of the Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 reads as under :- “5. An appeal shall lie to the Court from a judgment not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the superintendence of the Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction or in the exercise of its power of superintendence or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction or in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, order or award—(a) of a tribunal, Court or statutory arbitrator made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, or (b) of the Government or any Officer or authority, made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any such Act of one judge". 16. It will be appropriate to mention here that an appeal shall lie under the said Rule to the Court against the “Judgment" only. “Judgments" are of three categories :- (1) Final judgment; (2) Preliminary judgment; (3) Intermediary or interlocutory judgment. 17. As to when an interim order will be a judgment and when it will not, depends on the facts and the nature of the interim order. Any order which affect the merits of controversy between the parties by determining some disputed rights or liabilities would make judgment. 18. The declaration of a judge's intention of what his “judgment" is going to be or of his intention of what final result it is going to embody, is not a judgment until it is crystallised into a formal shape and pronounced in the Court. 19. In Vidyacharan Shukla vs. Khubchand Baghel and Others, 1964 SC 1099, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that judgment is statement of reasons given by the judge. 20. 19. In Vidyacharan Shukla vs. Khubchand Baghel and Others, 1964 SC 1099, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that judgment is statement of reasons given by the judge. 20. The interim relief application of the appellant is still pending before the learned Single Judge. Granting of time to the respondents to file counter affidavit does not amount to “judgment". 21. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the order impugned is not a “judgment" within the meaning of Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules and the appeal is not maintainable against the time granted to the respondents to file counter affidavit. 22. In Union of India vs. Era Educational Trust, AIR 2000 SC 1573 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering its large number of judgment held that while passing interim order in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, principles laid down for granting interim relief under Order XXXIX of CPC should be kept in mind. It cannot be issued as a matter of right. 23. Admittedly, no counter-claim has been filed by the respondents. Counter-claim enables to the respondent to enforce his claim as an independent action. There is no counter-claim of the respondents, therefore, at this stage, the impugned order, passed by the learned Single Judge to the effect, “———this writ petition will not preclude the bank authorities from recovering the loan amount" is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, the said order qua the above noted lines is set aside. 24. In view of the above discussions, the present Special Appeal is disposed of accordingly.