S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.

1. This appeal by the original defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 challenges an order passed by the learned single Judge in Notice of Motion No. 494 of 2014 in Suit No.516 of 2013.

2. By this order, which is fairly detailed, the learned single Judge disposed of a preliminary issue of jurisdiction raised by these defendants under section 9-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

3. There are two suits filed and our order passed today in the present appeal will dispose of the applications insofar as the above, in both suits.

4. Suit No. 516 of 2013 has been instituted by one Manugraph India Limited. The appellants before us are the defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 to this suit.

5. There is another Suit No. 632 of 2014, which is the subject matter of Commercial Appeal No. 40 of 2016.

6. To our mind, the fate of Commercial Appeal Nos.40 and 49 both of 2016 shall decide Commercial Appeal No.41 of 2016 as well.

7. The learned single Judge found that in Suit No.632 of 2014, a preliminary issue was framed on 31st March, 2016. The defendants in these suits urged that the plaintiffs have their registered office in Mumbai and they have a branch office in Delhi, where the defendants have their place of business. According to these defendants, when the cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of plaintiffs branch office at Delhi, then, this Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain and try the said suits. It is only the Courts in Delhi which would possess such jurisdiction.

7A. The appellants-original defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 in Suit No.516 of 2013 take a substantially similar plea. There, the facts projected were that the plaintiff in this suit has its registered office in Mumbai. The defendants in that suit are based in Kolhapur. The defendants allege that the plaintiffs also have an office in Kolhapur and that the site of the suit, therefore, should be Kolhapur.

7B. It is such an objection which has been considered by the learned single Judge and thereafter he concluded that in the light of the discussion, the preliminary issue in both suits has to be answered in the negative. In other words, this Court would have jurisdiction to entertain and try both suits. On such a preliminary objection to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, after hearing both sides, the learned Judge passed the following order:

“... … … …

38. In this view of the matter, the preliminary issues in both the matters are answered in the negative. This Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain both the Suits.

39. The Plaintiff's Notice of Motion will accordingly be set down for hearing, since the pleading in both are complete. List both Notices of Motions in both the Suits but separately for hearing and final disposal in the week of 11th July 2016.”

8. Thereafter, the learned Judge directed that the Notices of Motion for interim relief moved by the plaintiffs will have to be heard separately.

9. It is such an order which is under challenge before us.

10. It is common ground that the appeal is preferred under the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (Act 4 of 2016). This Act shall now be referred to as Act 4 of 2016.

11. According to the parties, the appellate power is to be found in Chapter IV titled “Appeals”, particularly in section 13.

12. Mr. R.M. Kadam, learned counsel appearing for the original plaintiff-respondent No.1 in Commercial Appeal No.40 of 2016 has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this appeal.

13. He invited our attention to sub-section (1) of section 13 as also sub-section (2) thereof to contend that the order under appeal is not an appealable order. It is not a decision by which even if the appellant is aggrieved allegedly, he can, as of right, maintain an appeal. According to Mr. Kadam, the law does not enable filing of appeals by parties like the appellants-defendants unless and until the impugned judgment and order is, as contemplated by th