Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses LPA Against Refusal to Prepone Hearing; Holds Letters Patent Appeal Not Maintainable Against Interlocutory Orders
Case Name: Ram Diya Attri v. Union of India and Others
Date of Judgment: 5 January 2026
Citation: LPA-1-2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikas Bahl and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Ramesh Kumari
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal, holding that no LPA is maintainable against an interlocutory order refusing to prepone the date of hearing of a writ petition. The Court held that such an order does not decide any substantive or collateral right of the parties and falls within the category of routine procedural orders, which are not appealable under Clause X of the Letters Patent.
Summary: The appellant challenged an order dated 29 December 2025 passed by a learned Single Judge (Vacation Judge), whereby an application seeking preponement of the hearing of the main writ petition was dismissed. The writ petition itself was already listed for hearing on 9 January 2026, immediately after reopening of the Court following the winter break.
The Division Bench examined the maintainability of the appeal and noted that the impugned order merely declined advancement of the hearing date and did not adjudicate any right, issue, or collateral matter. Relying on authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court, including Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda and Shyam Sel and Power Ltd. v. Shyam Steel Industries Ltd., the Court reiterated that only those interlocutory orders which finally determine substantive or collateral rights are amenable to challenge by way of Letters Patent Appeal.
The Court observed that entertaining LPAs against such procedural orders would open the floodgates of litigation, allowing challenges even to routine orders such as adjournments or grant of time, thereby wasting scarce judicial resources. The Division Bench further noted that the writ petition had been listed for the first time on 23 December 2025 in the presence of counsel for the petitioner and that the application for preponement was moved during court vacations without any compelling urgency.
It was held that the order refusing preponement fell squarely within the category of non-appealable interlocutory orders and did not satisfy the test of a “judgment” under the Letters Patent.
Decision: The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed as not maintainable and devoid of merit. The order passed by the learned Single Judge declining preponement of the hearing was upheld.