It is well settled that orders at the interlocutory stages should not be brought to the higher Courts to obtain fragmentary decision, as it tends to harm the advancement of fair play and justice, curtailing remedies available under the law, even reducing the right of appeal.

Also in Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto, MNA and Leader of the Opposition, Bilawal House, Karachi Vs. The State (1999 SCMR 1447) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held:-- 

"It is well settled that orders at the interlocutory stages should not be brought to the higher Courts to obtain fragmentary decision, as it tends to harm the advancement of fair play and justice, curtailing remedies available under the law, even reducing the right of appeal. Refer the case of "Mushtaq Hussain Bukhari v. The State" 1991 SCMR 2136, 

Muhammad Afzal Zullah, the then Hon'ble Chief Justice, at page 168 of the report observed as follows:-- 

"It is a wrong or at least misstatement in our state of law, practice, procedures and proceedings in the Courts of law, that wrong orders should be corrected at the time they are passed because it would take less time for the case to conclude. This might have been true half a century to quarter century ago. Thereafter, the challenge to the interlocutory orders has brought about a deluge in the administration of criminal justice. Cases started piling up with the result that the concept of speedy justice came to a grinding halt and powers that may be, started thinking of curtailing remedies even reducing the right of appeals. Cases like the present one do justify such an angry re-action but with a little change of practice in the technical field (for example amendment, vis-a-vis, the subject in section 197, Cr.P.C. it is hoped there would no (sic) be need to curtail the remedies as that too in the stage where we are passing, might be counter-productive"

Part of Judgment : 

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT.

WP- Family Law
21213-14

2014 LHC 6331