An appeal against an ad-interim order is maintainable under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the CPC, applicable in commercial disputes, affirming that such orders do not preclude appellate jurisdiction.

ORDER :

DINESH MEHTA, J.

1. Instant appeal has been preferred under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') read with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2015') calling in question, the propriety and correctness of the order dated 07.01.2026.

2. No sooner had Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, learned senior counsel for the appellant (defendant no.4) opened his arguments, than Mr. Siddharth Yadav, learned senior counsel for respondent no.1 (plaintiff) interjected and raised a preliminary objection that the instant appeal is not maintainable as the order dated 07.01.2026 does not finally decide the interim application much less the suit. His argument, in substance was that unless an application or lis is finally decided, appellate jurisdiction conferred under Section 13 of the Act of 2015 cannot be invoked.

3. While highlighting that the impugned order was passed on 07.01.2026 and a period of about 45 days has since passed, learned senior counsel argued that almost an equal period of time (45 days) is remaining when the matter would come before learned Single Judge, as the next date is06.04.2026.

4. In support of his contention that the instant appeal is not maintainable, learned senior counsel for respondent no.1 relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania reported in(1981) 4 SCC 8 , and argued with vehemence that Hon’ble the Supreme Court has clearly delineated the parameters under which an appeal can lie.

5. He argued that the instant case does not fall within the scope of the appellate jurisdiction and prayed that the appeal be rejected on the ground of maintainability.

6. Apart from the judgment in the case of Shah Babulal Khimji (supra), learned senior counsel relied upon the following judgments:

i. Jaswinder Singh v. Mrigendra Pritam Vikramsingh Steiner & Ors. reported in 2012:DHC:6522-DB.

ii. Exports Unlimited v. Delhi State Industrial Development Corpn. reported in 1996 SCC OnLine Del 259.

iii. Sahil Singh Maniktala & Ors. v. Harpreet Singh & Ors. reported in 2005 (81) DRJ 183 (DB).

iv. Perpetual Vision LLP & Anr. v. Vaibhav S Pingale & Ors. in 2025:DHC:10019-DB.

7. He relied upon all the judgments mentioned hereinabove with equal force but special emphasis was laid upon the judgment rendered in the case ofPerpetual Vision LLP (supra), while pointing out that the appeal in such case too was an appeal under Section 13 of the Act of 2015 and yet the Delhi High Court has held that the appeal is not maintainable.

8. Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, learned senior counsel for the appellant (defendant no. 4), on the other hand, argued that the provisions relating to appeal as provided under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1966') or for that matter, of any Letters Patent have no application to an appeal under Section 13 of the Act of 2015.

9. He submitted that Section 13 of the Act of 2015 simply provides that an appeal shall lie from orders specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of the CPC. He drew Court’s attention towards the cause title and pointed out that the appeal in hands is, in essence, an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the CPC read with Section 13 of the Act of 2015, though a passing reference of Section 10 of the Act of 1966 has been made. He argued that the respondent’s arguments are totally devoid of merit.

10. He read the provisions contained in sub-rule (r) of Rule 1 of Order XLIII of the CPC and submitted that the same provides that an a