BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.12.2016 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in I.A. No.15867/2016 in CS (Comm) 1218/2016. The said application was filed by the plaintiffs, inter alia, praying that new documents filed alongwith the affidavits by way of examination-in-chief of new witnesses of the plaintiffs be taken on record. The learned single Judge permitted the said documents to be taken on record, subject to the plaintiffs/respondents herein paying costs. The appellants are aggrieved by this order.

2. At the commencement of the hearing of this appeal, the respondents took a preliminary objection as to its maintainability. It was contended that the impugned order was not an appealable order specified in Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPC’). It was further contended that this being an order passed by the Commercial Division of this High Court, an appeal therefrom was governed by Section 13 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’). It was contended that the proviso to Section 13 (1) of the said Act limited appeals from orders to such orders which were specifically enumerated under Order XLIII CPC and Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Reliance was also placed on Section 13(2) of the said Act which is a non-obstante provision specifying that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or Letters Patent of a High Court, no appeal shall lie from any order or decree of a Commercial Division or Commercial Court otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. Relying upon these provisions, it was contended that the present appeal was not maintainable.

3. On the other hand, the appellants took the stand that the present appeal was maintainable even though the impugned order was not an order which was specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of the CPC. In brief, it was suggested that the impugned order was in the nature of a ‘judgment’ and, therefore, the proviso, which applied only to orders, did not prohibit the appeal. It was, inter alia, contended that the proviso was merely clarificatory and ought not to be read in a restrictive manner. Various other arguments were also raised which we shall outline in detail below.

4. It is in this backdrop that we heard arguments only on the maintainability of the present appeal on the admitted facts that (1) the impugned order was passed in a commercial dispute by the Commercial Division of this court; (2) the impugned order is not an order specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of the CPC; and (3) the present appeal is preferred under Section 13 of the said Act and not under any Letters Patent or provisions of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966.

5. Before we proceed further, it would be necessary to set out the relevant portion of the Statement of Objects and Reasons and the relevant provisions of the said Act and the CPC.

I. Relevant portion/provisions of the said Act:

“Statement of objects and reasons

The proposal to provide for speedy disposal of high value commercial disputes has been under consideration of the Government for quite some time. The high value commercial disputes involve complex facts and question of law. Therefore, there is a need to provide for an independent mechanism for their early resolution. Early resolution of commercial disputes shall create a positive image to the investor world about the independent and responsive Indian legal system.

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx”

“8. Bar against revision application or petition against an interlocutory order.–Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no civil revision application or petition shall be entertained against any interlocutory order of a Commercial Court, including an order on the issue of jurisd