Manmohan, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 39 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 for setting aside the judgment and order dated 5th May, 2003 passed by learned Single Judge in Suit No. 266-A/2001.

2. At the outset, Mr. Madan Bhatia, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of present appeal on the ground that under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 appeals were maintainable only against the orders mentioned in Clauses (i) to (vi) of Section 39 (1). Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:

39. Appealable orders. (1) An appeal shall lie from the following orders passed under this Act (and from no others) to the Court authorised by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the Court passing the order:

An order-

.(i) superseding an arbitration;

.(ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case;

(iii) modifying or correcting an award;

.(iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement;

.(v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement;

.(vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award;

Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any order passed by a Small Cause Court.

(2) No second appeal shall lie from an order passed in appeal under this section, but nothing in this section shall affect or take away any right to appeal to the [Supreme Court].

3. Mr. Bhatia referred to the observations of the Honble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Mohinder Supply reported in : [1962] 3 SCR 497 and observations of this Court in Union of India v. A.S. Dhupia reported in AIR 1970 Delhi 108 wherein it has been held that the right to appeal is a creature of the statute and the Arbitration Act being a complete code within itself has given a right to appeal only in respect of certain orders and consequently the right to appeal against other orders has expressly been taken away. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court and this Court are reproduced hereinbelow:

.(A) Union of India v. Mohinder Supply reported in : [1962] 3 SCR 497

.(5) ... Under Section 39(1), an appeal lies from the orders specified in that Sub-section and from no others. The legislature has plainly expressed itself that right of appeal against orders passed under the Arbitration Act may be exercised only in respect of certain orders. The right to appeal against other orders is expressly taken away. If by the express provision contained in S. 39(1), a right to appeal from a judgment which may otherwise be available under the Letters patent is restricted, there is no ground for holding that cl. (2) does not similarly restrict the exercise of appellate power granted by the Letters Patent...

.(6) ... But the right to appeal is a creature of statute; no litigant has an inherent right to appeal against a decision of a Court...

(14) The intention of the legislature in enacting sub-s. (1) of S. 104 is clear : the right to appeal conferred by any other law for the time being in force is expressly preserved. This intention is emphasized by S. 4 which provides that in the absence of any specific provision to the contrary, nothing in the Code is intended to limit or otherwise affect any special jurisdiction or power conferred by or under any other law for the time being in force...

(19)- The Arbitration Act which is a consolidating and amending Act, being substantially in the form of a code relating to arbitration must be construed without any assumption that it was not intended to alter the law relating to appeals. The words of the statute are plain and explicit and they must be given their full effect and must be interpreted in their natural meaning, uninfluenced by any assumptions derived from the previous state of the law and without any assumption that the legislature must have intended to leave the existing law unaltered. In our view the legislature has made a delibe