K. Vinod Chandran, CJ.—The defendant in Commercial Dispute Case No. 02 of 2023 is before this Court against the order of the learned District Judge, Patna dated 04.01.2024, who is the designated court under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

2. Shri Y.V.Giri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff, raised a preliminary objection that the appeal is not maintainable since the order is not one under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is pointed out that the order only makes over the case to the Additional District Judge (for brevity ‘ADJ’), which cannot be faulted and surely not entitled to be challenged in an appeal. Reliance is placed on Jaycee Housing Private Limited & Ors. vs. Registrar (General) Orissa High Court, Cuttack & Ors., (2023) 1 SCC 549 [: 2022 (6) BLJ 382 (SC)] and Yamini Manohar vs. T.K.D. Keerthi, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1382.

3. Shri S.D.Sanjay, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the order has two limbs, one the waiver of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (for brevity ‘C.C.Act’), which is not permissible and the other making over of the records of the case to the learned ADJ-XIV. Reliance is placed on Patil Automation Private Limited vs. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited, (2022) 10 SCC 1 [: 2022 (6) BLJ 1 (SC)], to contend that the pre-institution mediation and settlement, as provided under Section 12A, could not have been avoided. Insofar as the making over of the records of the case to the ADJ; Annexure-A/17 Notification dated 02.08.2019 is specifically referred to; wherein the courts in all the districts of the State of Bihar have been constituted as Commercial Courts to exercise original jurisdiction in respect of commercial disputes, where the value of suits of disputes exceeds rupees one crore. Reliance is also placed on a decision of a co-ordinate Bench in MJC No. 1323 of 2018, titled as M/s Vishal Builtech India Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Union of India & Ors. dated 03.08.2018.

4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff would point out that the ADJ has not only declined the interim prayer, but also dismissed the application for rejection of suit filed under Order VII, Rule 11, as is produced at Annexure-R/4. The appellant having acquiesed to the jurisdiction cannot wriggle out of the same, by filing an appeal from an earlier order.

5. Having gone through the contents of the order, we are of the opinion that it has two limbs, one, with respect to waiver of the proceedings under Section 12A and the other, the direction to make over the case to the ADJ-XIV. We agree with the respondent/plaintiff that both these orders could not have been challenged in an appeal under Section 13 of the C.C.Act. However, both the said aspects, comprised in one single order, can be challenged under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. We would not reject the appeal only by reason of the aforesaid contention, since we are entitled to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226/227; which we suo motu exercise, especially considering the fact that the very intention behind the enactment; i.e. Commercial Courts Act, is for speedy disposal of commercial matters.

6. Insofar as transmission of the case to the ADJ-XIV, we cannot but notice that the State Government is empowered to constitute the Commercial Courts under Section 3 of the C.C.Act. A notification has also been brought out, produced as Annexure-A/17, which constitutes the court of the District Judge in all the districts of State of Bihar as Commercial Courts.

7. M/s Vishal Builtech India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) considered the very same issue, but with respect to a notification issued prior to Annexure-A/17. On 03.03.2017, the State Government after consultation with the High Court, constituted the Courts of District Judges of the nine Commissionerates, as Commercial Courts for the respective local limits of the Commissionerate. The petitioner therein having filed a petition under Sect