C.Praveen Kumar, J.

The termination of the mandate of the Arbitrator due to non-completion of the arbitration proceedings within the time fixed by the High Court, is the subject matter of challenge in the present case.

2. Heard Sri S.Ravi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri M.V.Pratap Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Sandeep Sharma, for Sri B.Chandrsen Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. By an order dated 29.12.2017, the Judge, Commercial Court-cum-XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, while terminating the mandate of the arbitrator directed the parties to approach the Hon'ble High Court for appointment of an arbitrator, under Section 15 (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Arbitration Act"). Assailing the same, the petitioners herein initially filed an appeal under Section 13 (1) of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (for short "the Commercial Courts Act") on 05.03.2018 after obtaining a certified copy of the Order. Though the appeal was numbered, but realizing that an appeal will not lie against the said order filed I.A.No.5 of 2018 under Section 151 of C.P.C., seeking conversion of the appeal into a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is pleaded that filing of an appeal is a bonafide mistake and that grave prejudice would be caused if the petitioners are not allowed to agitate their grievance by converting the appeal into revision.

4. The same was opposed contending that in view of Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, no revision shall be entertained against an interlocutory order of Commercial Court including an order on the issue of jurisdiction, and any such challenge, subject to provision of Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, shall be raised only in an appeal against the decree of the Commercial Court.

5. Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act postulates that any person aggrieved by any of the decision of the Commercial Court or Commercial Division of High Court may appeal to the Commercial Appellate Division of that High Court within a period of 60 days from the date of judgment or the order, as the case may be. Provided that an appeal shall lie from such orders passed by a Commercial Division or a Commercial Court that are specifically enumerated under Order 43 of C.P.C. as amended by the Commercial Courts Act and Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. It appears that the present application seeking conversion is filed on a premise that an appeal shall lie from the orders passed by the Commercial Court that are specifically enumerated under Section 43 C.P.C. or under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 only.

6. After considering the law on the subject and also the power of the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in L.Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261 held that the jurisdiction conferred on the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and on the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution, forming its integral and essential feature, which cannot be tampered with much less taken away even by constitutional amendment, not to speak of a parliamentary legislation.

7. In State v. Navjot Sandhu, (2003) 6 SCC 641 the Apex Court held that the jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be limited or fettered by any Act of the state Legislature; the supervisory jurisdiction is wide and can be used to meet the ends of justice, also to interfere even with an interlocutory order, but however expressed that the said power must be exercised sparingly, only to move subordinate courts and Tribunals within the bounds of their authority to see that they obey the law. The Apex Court further held that the power is not available to be exercised to cor