Report No. 95
30. Should judicial review, revision or appeal against interlocutory order be abolished?
Recently, the House of Lords observed that matters reaching them for preliminary decisions do not serve the cause of justice [Allen v. Gulf Oil Ltd., (1981) 2 WLR 188 (HL) 190]. In the United States of America, the "final judgment rule" has been evolved to maximise available judicial resources and to avoid piecemeal litigation [U.S. v. Nixon, 418 US 683 (690) (1974)]. The question as to what is an interlocutory order and whether an appeal lies has also given rise to difficulties (Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, AIR 1977 SC 2185 (2190); Mohan Lal v. Prem Chand, AIR 1980 HP 36 (38); Pranab Kumar v. Yusuf Ali, 1979 Cr LJ 95 (98); Inayatullah Rizvi v. Rahimatullah, 1981 Cr LJ 1398).