JUDGMENT : G.S. Sandhawalia, CJ. 1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 18.12.2024, passed in CMP (M) No.653 of 2024, wherein an application filed by the plaintiff for condoning delay of 34 days in filing review application was allowed by the learned Single Judge. 2. It is not disputed that the main Civil Review Application is still to be decided by learned Single Judge. 3. The office has also put an objection againstthe maintainability of the present Letters Patent Appeal against the order passed by learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that there are some observations made by learned Single Judge against the conduct as such of the LRs of the deceased defendant and the present appellant that they had not informed the Court about the death of the defendant. In such circumstances he sought to argue the present appeal on the ground that the said observations would adversely affect his case, when the review application is to be decided. 4. We are firstly of the considered view that the present appeal itself is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Midnapore Peoples’ Co-op. Bank Ltd. & Ors. V. Chunilal Nanda & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 2190 . Since learned Single Judge has not decided the question or issue in controversy to the main case or its root’s, as the order which is passed is only to facilitate the progress of the case till its culmination in the final judgment. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court read 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. (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. On the other hand, orders falling under categories (iv) and (v) are not 'judgments' for purpose of filing appeals provided under the Letters Patent.” 5. Learned Single Judge had decided Civil Suit No.4 of 2018 in favour of plaintiff-Darshan Singh [respondent herein] and decreed the suit for Specific Performance of Contract dated 22.10.2005 and the deceased-Sadh Ram [defendant therein] had been directed to perform his part of agreement by executing a sale deed at the expenses of the plaintiff within a period of three months on the deposit of balance consideration of Rs.77,00,000/-. It is apparent when the order was sought to be executed, it came to the knowledge of plaintiff that defendant Sadh Ram had already expired during the pendency of this suit on 20.08.2021 and was survived by his son [Ram Dayal] & daughter [Dayalo] and the mutation of inheritance prepared has been sanctioned on 01.05.2024, in favour of the present appellant [Ram Dayal]. 6. It is in such circumstances the review application came to be filed along with application for condonation of delay of 34 days, which the learned Single Judge has allowed by impugned order dated 18.12.2024. 6. It is in such circumstances the review application came to be filed along with application for condonation of delay of 34 days, which the learned Single Judge has allowed by impugned order dated 18.12.2024. The learned Single Judge has made observations that while dealing with the application for condonation of delay as such that the present appellant had not held out that they informed their counsel about the death of the father and it is only in these circumstances, the observations have come forth that it was the duty of the pleader to communicate to the Court, the death of the party. Learned Single Judge thus has held that since no such effort was made and the pleader had continuously represented the deceased, till the time of decision of the suit on 12.01.2024. The application had been allowed with the said observation since it was case of the present appellant that there was a delay of 988 days if the date of death was to be taken as 20.08.2021 and the application should have been filed at that point of time. It is in these circumstances that the observations had been made by the learned Single Judge in order to cut down the delay to the period of 34 days as contended by the plaintiff-applicant before him. Thus, the second limb of the argument that the observations as such were adverse or would affect the review application, is baseless. 7. Keeping in view the above and in view of the appeal not being maintainable as the learned Single Judge has yet to decide the review application, which is stated to be listed before him, the present appeal is dismissed on the ground of maintainability as the impugned order condoning the delay as such does not adversely affect the present appellant and the learned Single Judge has not decided the controversy in the main case and therefore, the present impugned order is neither materially nor directly affecting the appellant as in view of allowing the application for condonation of delay, no substantial issue has been decided and no final determination of rights has been done. 8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.