LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Interlocutory Appeals – Discretionary Power to Grant Leave – Court’s Reluctance to Grant Where Intention Is to Delay Substantive Proceedings

Interlocutory appeals require leave, and courts should refuse leave when applicant’s “manifest intention” is delaying substantive proceedings. “Manifest intention” means: obvious purpose, clear from circumstances, and evident from applicant’s conduct. Indicators of delay intention: serial interlocutory applications, weak grounds lacking merit, applications on peripheral issues, history of dilatory tactics, or timing suggesting delay motive. “Should not use discretionary power” means: courts must guard against abuse of interlocutory appeal process, refuse to facilitate delay, and protect substantive proceedings from obstruction. This serves: expeditious justice, preventing abuse of process, protecting respondents from delay tactics, and ensuring interlocutory appeals serve legitimate purposes (resolving important preliminary issues) not obstruction. Courts assess: is interlocutory issue genuinely important? would delay prejudice substantive proceedings? is applicant’s motive legitimate or dilatory? Legitimate interlocutory appeals: raise important preliminary issues, potentially dispose of case, or address jurisdictional/procedural matters warranting early determination. Illegitimate ones: raise peripheral issues, have weak merit, or obviously aim at delay. This principle empowers courts to: identify delay tactics, refuse leave when motive is obstruction, and protect substantive proceedings from serial interlocutory appeals. The discretion to grant leave includes discretion to refuse when purpose is delay.