JUDGMENT : Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J. The present Writ Appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958, assails the interim order dated 17.03.2025 passed in W.P(C)No.4690 of 2020, whereby the learned Single Judge has issued certain directions to disburse the amount to the 1 st respondent/petitioner in respect of the outstanding amount to be paid for the construction of bus terminal/shopping complex. 2. The appellants herein are respondents 2 and 3 in the Writ Petition. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the 1 st respondent/petitioner had filed the Writ Petition seeking for the following reliefs: “(i) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction be issued commanding the Respondents to make immediate payment of pending 4th Running Account bill amounting to Rs. 92,86,912/- certified for payment and pending with the office of the Chairman/Director right from September 2018 immediately, however within a time limit prescribed by this Hon'ble Court. (ii) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction be issued commanding the Respondents to finalise the 5th Running Account bill, certify for payment of the up to date work done over and above the amount covered by 4 Running Account bill to an amount of Rs. 1.5 crores and make payment of the same within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. (ii) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction be issued directing the Respondents to approve the Revised Estimate pending in the office of the 2nd Respondent, incorporating various extra and additional items done as per the instructions of the officers of the Respondents including all the variations from the original design effected for proper completion of the work in order to enable payment of the amounts due on account of variations in quantities of the agreed items, extra and additional items etc. which comes to nearly Rs. 6.54 Crores. (iv) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction be issued commanding the Respondents to afford facilities for completion of balance work remaining which is around 10% subject to payment of pending bills and approval of Revised Estimate as above. which comes to nearly Rs. 6.54 Crores. (iv) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction be issued commanding the Respondents to afford facilities for completion of balance work remaining which is around 10% subject to payment of pending bills and approval of Revised Estimate as above. (v) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate wit, order or direction bo issued directing the Respondents to reimburse the additional amount of 8%, Petitioner had to remit on on account of GST introduced by the Central and State Governments at 12% after the execution of the agreement, against 4% VAT which only had to be paid at the time of tendering, award of work, execution of the work and in the beginning of performance of the contract*. (vi) A writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for all the records leading to imposition of fine/penalty of Rs. 2,40,000 (Rs. 90,000 from 3rd R.A. Bill, Rs. 1,50,000 from 4th R.A. Bill still pending) levied on the false pretext of delay as if caused by the Petitioner in completion of work notwithstanding the delay caused by the Respondents in various respects as stated above and quash the same. (vii) Grant costs to the Petitioner and such other reliefs as are prayed for and deemed fit to be granted in the circumstances of the case.” 3. The learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned interim order dated 17.03.2025 directing the 1 st appellant to make the payment of an amount of Rs.25 lakhs to the 1 st respondent on or before 15.04.2025 and a further amount of Rs.25 lakhs on or before 15.05.2025, which travels beyond the scope of the Writ Petition, as can be seen from the interim prayer clause, wherein there is no prayer for release of the payment. The prayer in the Writ Petition was only to make immediate payment of the pending 4th Running Account bill and finalise the 5th Running Account Bill and for a further direction to the respondents to approve the Revised Estimate. It is submitted that the 4th Running Bill was paid to the 1st respondent during the pendency of the Writ Petition itself. It is submitted that the 4th Running Bill was paid to the 1st respondent during the pendency of the Writ Petition itself. It is true that only after the Writ Petition is finally decided or adjudicated the appellants would be liable to pay any further amount to the 1st respondent. Therefore, the learned Single Judge committed an error in directing the appellants to pay the amount in installments through various interim orders, without any adjudication or finality having been attained. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that there is a dispute with regard to the payment of the bills, and that the appellants have raised several concerns and also disputed the correctness of the constructions carried out, as stated in their counter-affidavit, by producing the relevant records. Therefore, in such a situation, issuance of interim directions to make the payment without final adjudication, is improper and liable to be set aside. Therefore, interference by this Court has become necessary. 5. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent opposed the afore prayer and submitted that the learned Single Judge has only directed to pay the admitted amounts through the interim order. It is the settled legal position that Writ Appeals are not maintainable against the interim order unless the same is of final in nature. The learned Single Judge has clearly spelt out in the order that the interim directions issued will be duly taken note of while finalising the final bill. Therefore, the instant Appeal itself is not maintainable. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. Admittedly the present appeal has been filed against an interim order which is not in final nature. However, at this juncture, we would like to address ourselves how the Apex Court dealt with the concept of interlocutory order while dealing with the appeals preferred under the Letters Patent. We are conscious that the appeals under the Letters Patent are different from the appeals provided under the Kerala High Court Rules, 1971, but the decisions rendered by the Apex Court are instructive to understand the nature and character of an interlocutory order. In Midnapore Peoples' Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda [ (2006) 5 SCC 399 ], it has been held as under: “16. In Midnapore Peoples' Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda [ (2006) 5 SCC 399 ], it has been held as under: “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, "judgment" 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 the purpose of filing appeals provided under the Letters Patent.” 8. From the aforesaid enunciation of law, there remains no scintilla of doubt that interlocutory orders on certain circumstances, could be appealed against under the Letters Patent. Despite the fact they are interlocutory in nature they can be put into the compartment of judgment if it affects the merits of the case between the parties by determining some rights or liabilities. There can be three categories of judgments, final judgment, preliminary judgment and intermediary judgment or interlocutory judgment. Despite the fact they are interlocutory in nature they can be put into the compartment of judgment if it affects the merits of the case between the parties by determining some rights or liabilities. There can be three categories of judgments, final judgment, preliminary judgment and intermediary judgment or interlocutory judgment. If the order finally decides the question and directly affects the decision in the main case or an order which decides the collateral issue or the question which is not the subject matter of the main case or which determines the rights and obligation of the parties in a final way indubitably they are appealable. 9. On perusal of the impugned interim order as well as the prayer clause reproduced herein above, the 1 st respondent has not prayed for any interim relief to disburse the amount. Moreover, we are of the considered opinion that when the appellants have subsequently disputed the amount, the learned Single Judge could not have directed the release of payments by way of various interim orders without any final adjudication. As per the judgment in Midnapore Peoples' Cooperative Bank Ltd. (supra), the matter falls within clauses (ii) and (v) of the directions; namely, “ (ii) Orders which finally decide an issue which materially and directly affects the final decision in the main case. (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.” 10. In view of the aforesaid, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be upheld and accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. The Writ Appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. However, looking into the urgency in the matter, the learned Single Judge is requested to decide the Writ Petition as early as possible.