1 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.652/2006. Gyaneshwar Prasad Goyal Vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur & Ors. .. Date of Order :: 15th November 2010. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. TOTLA Mr. C.P. Soni, for the appellant. Mr. M.S. Singhvi, for the respondents. <<>> BY THE COURT: This intra-court appeal has been filed by the petitioner of CWP No872/2006 against the order dated 11.08.2006 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court, after taking into consideration the questions raised in the writ petition, proceeded to vacate the interim order earlier passed in favour of the petitioner. The impugned order reads as under:- “Heard. The questions raised in the writ petition are the questions which do not confirm to the realm of judicial review. This is not an appellate court. The stay granted by this Court on 24/5/06 is vacated.” The learned counsel for the parties inform that the writ petition wherein the aforesaid order was passed remains pending for consideration before the learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned counsel for the appellant further informs that in the recovery proceedings adopted by the respondent-Bank, an order came to be passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur on 18.09.2009 consigning the recovery proceedings to record after noticing the submissions on behalf of the Bank that the loan amount had been assigned to ARCIL in the year 2008 and after further noticing that there was no substitution of ARCIL. 2 In the totality of the circumstances, we see no reason to consider interference in the impugned order as passed by the learned Single Judge in the pending writ petition. Vacation of interim writ does not decide finally the rights of the parties, which are adjudicated and decided only when the writ petition is finally decided on merits. Secondly, the observations made by the learned Single Judge on the prayer for interim relief are tentative in nature and cannot, by themselves, be decisive of the fate of the writ petition on merits. Thirdly, looking to the order dated 18.09.2009 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, at present, there appears no reason to consider granting of interim relief to the appellant. Moreover, when the main writ petition remains pending, it is always open for the parties to move appropriate application and to make prayer before the learned Single Judge for passing of the appropriate interim order on any subsequent events or additional facts or for early disposal of the writ petition, as the case may be. On any such prayer, it is always open for the learned Single Judge to pass appropriate order looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is with the observations foregoing, we do not consider it proper to interfere in the impugned order at this stage and accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. No costs. (C.M. TOTLA), J. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/