BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.02.2016 passed by a learned single Judge of this court in IA No.4311/2016 in OMP 294/2014. IA No.4311/2016 was an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed on behalf of the respondent for condonation of delay of 55 days in re-filing. The said application was allowed by the learned single Judge by virtue of the impugned order dated 17.02.2016. OMP 294/2014 is a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the A&C Act’) for setting aside the arbitral award dated 10.09.2013.

2. The plea of the appellant before this court is that the learned single Judge ought not to have condoned the delay of 55 days in re-filing the said petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent herein raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the present appeal. It was contended on behalf of the respondent that an appeal under Section 37 of the A&C Act could be filed only against the orders specified in Section 37(1)(a), (b) or (c). It was pointed out that the impugned order does not fall within the orders specified in Section 37(1) of the A&C Act. The learned counsel emphasised that Section 37(1) of that Act uses the expression “(and from no others)” which clearly indicates that only those orders mentioned in Section 37(1) would be appealable and no others.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appeal is maintainable and for this submission, he placed reliance on Sections 8 and 13 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of the High Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commercial Courts Act’). He also placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of this court in the case of National Highways Authority of India v. Oriental Structure Engineers Limited–Gammon India Limited (JV): 2012 (132) DRJ 769 (FB). The learned counsel for the appellant referred to Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act to submit that no civil revision application or petition could be entertained against any interlocutory order of a commercial court. But, this was subject to the provisions of Section 13 of that Act. He submitted that Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act deals with the appeals and Section 13(1) specifically refers to appeals from ‘judgments’ or ‘orders’. Thus, according to him, any person aggrieved by a decision of the Commercial Division of a High Court could appeal to the Commercial Appellate Division of that High Court within a period of 60 days from the date of judgment or “order”, as is the case herein. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Full Bench decision in the case of National Highways Authority (supra) made it clear that an aggrieved party could maintain more than one appeal, that is, one at the initial stage and the other at the final stage when the petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act is finally disposed of. It was submitted in this context that the appellant was entitled to file an appeal against the impugned order inasmuch as the learned single Judge had allowed the condonation of delay application and, as a result, he had taken the Section 34 petition under the A&C Act on board when it ought to have been rejected on the ground of limitation. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that an appeal against this order would lie at this stage itself as also at the stage of disposal of the said OMP No.294/2014 by the aggrieved party. It was contended that the learned single Judge could not have condoned the delay in re-filing. Had that been the case, the petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act would not itself be entertained and for this reason, the appellant’s rights have been affected and, therefore, the present appeal is clearly maintainable.

5. Section 37 of the A&C Act has been amended by the A