Interlocutory order is a judicial direction made during the pendency of a suit or proceeding that does not finally determine the rights and liabilities of the parties but is ancillary or incidental to the final adjudication. Under Indian law, interlocutory orders are distinguished from final orders and decrees under Section 2(14) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and are generally not appealable except where specifically permitted under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC.
Legal definition
Section 2(14) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 defines "order" as:
Section 2(14): "Order" means the formal expression of any decision of a Civil Court which is not a decree.
The CPC does not provide an express definition of "interlocutory order." The concept is defined negatively — an order that does not amount to a "decree" under Section 2(2) (which requires a conclusive determination of the rights of parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy) and does not finally dispose of the suit is interlocutory in nature.
Interlocutory orders are characterised by their provisional and procedural nature. They regulate the conduct of proceedings, grant interim relief, determine procedural questions, and address incidental matters without finally resolving the substantive dispute between the parties. Common examples include orders granting or refusing temporary injunctions (Order 39), orders for discovery and inspection (Order 11), orders for the appointment of receivers (Order 40), and orders regarding adjournments.
Section 104 CPC, read with Order 43 Rule 1, specifies which interlocutory orders are appealable. Only those orders expressly listed in Order 43 Rule 1 (such as orders relating to injunctions, receivers, and amendment of pleadings) are subject to appeal. All other interlocutory orders can only be challenged through revision under Section 115 CPC or in appeal against the final decree.
How courts have interpreted this term
Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania [(1981) 4 SCC 8]
The Supreme Court resolved conflicting High Court opinions on the meaning of "judgment" for the purposes of the Letters Patent Appeal. The Court held that not every interlocutory order qualifies as a "judgment" — only those interlocutory orders that decide "matters of moment" or affect "vital and valuable rights" of the parties and work serious injustice to the party concerned can be regarded as judgments amenable to Letters Patent Appeal. This test distinguishes between routine procedural orders (not appealable under Letters Patent) and substantive interlocutory determinations.
Midnapore Peoples' Co-operative Bank v. Chunilal Nanda [(2006) 5 SCC 399]
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that interlocutory orders that do not conclusively determine the rights of parties are not decrees under Section 2(2) CPC and are therefore not appealable under Section 96 CPC. The Court held that the test for distinguishing an interlocutory order from a final order/decree is whether the order conclusively determines the rights of the parties regarding a matter in controversy.
Wander Ltd. v. Antox India Pvt. Ltd. [(1990) Supp SCC 727]
The Supreme Court laid down the principle governing appellate interference with interlocutory orders. The Court held that an appellate court will not substitute its own discretion for that of the trial court in matters of interlocutory relief, except where the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely, or in disregard of settled principles of law.
Why this matters
Interlocutory orders constitute the vast majority of judicial orders passed during the life of a civil suit. Understanding their nature and limitations is essential for every litigator. The distinction between interlocutory and final orders has profound consequences for appealability, enforceability, and the scope of judicial review.
For practitioners, the most critical practical question is whether a particular interlocutory order can be appealed. The general rule is restrictive: only orders specifically listed in Order 43 Rule 1 CPC are appealable. Orders not listed there can only be challenged through revision under Section 115 CPC (limited to jurisdictional errors) or by questioning the order in the appeal against the final decree under Section 96 CPC. This means that many adverse interlocutory orders must be endured until the suit concludes, unless they fall within the limited categories of appealable orders.
A practical tip: in High Courts that retain the Letters Patent jurisdiction, the Shah Babulal Khimji test opens an additional avenue. If an interlocutory order decides a matter of moment affecting vital rights, it may qualify as a "judgment" for Letters Patent Appeal purposes, providing an avenue for challenge even if it is not listed in Order 43.
Related terms
Opposite:
Related types:
Broader concepts:
Frequently asked questions
Can an interlocutory order be appealed in India?
Only specific interlocutory orders are appealable. Order 43 Rule 1 CPC lists the categories of orders against which an appeal lies, including orders relating to temporary injunctions (Order 39), appointment of receivers (Order 40), and amendment of pleadings (Order 6 Rule 17). Other interlocutory orders can be challenged through revision under Section 115 CPC or questioned in the appeal against the final decree.
What is the difference between an interlocutory order and a decree?
A decree under Section 2(2) CPC is a conclusive determination of the rights of the parties regarding all or any matters in controversy. An interlocutory order does not conclusively determine rights; it is provisional and procedural. Decrees are always appealable under Section 96 CPC; interlocutory orders are appealable only when specifically listed in Order 43 Rule 1 CPC.
Can an interlocutory order become a final order?
An interlocutory order does not typically become a final order, but certain orders that appear interlocutory may in substance be final. For example, an order rejecting a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is deemed to be a decree under Section 2(2) CPC because it finally disposes of the suit. Similarly, an order of dismissal for default under Order 9 Rule 8 is treated as a decree.
This entry is part of the Veritect Indian Legal Glossary, a comprehensive reference of Indian legal terminology grounded in statutory text and judicial interpretation.
Last updated: 2026-03-27. Veritect provides this content for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.