JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Order XXXVI Rule 1 of OS Rules against Judgment and Order dated 24.09.2021 passed in Application No.1494 of 2021 in C.S.No.96 of 2021 on the file of original side of this court.)

1. The appeal arises out of an order in course of an application for summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in an admiralty action to which the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 also applies.

2. A preliminary objection is taken by the defendant respondent to the effect that the appeal is not maintainable in view of the restricted scope of appeal in Section 13 of the Act of 2015 and in the light of a recent judgment of this court reported at 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 5428 (Hindustan Unilever Limited v. S.Shanthi). The defendant asserts that since the order impugned has been passed under Order I Rule 10 of the Code, which gives complete discretion to the trial court to add or strike out any party, and such nature of order is not recognised as appellable under Order XLIII of the Code, the appeal cannot be pursued. It is the further submission of the defendant that, at any rate, no decision on the merits of the plaintiff’s claim has been made in the order impugned; the trial court only desires to adjudicate the disputes in the presence of the added defendant.

3. The plaintiff appellant relies on Section 14 of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 which provides as follows:-

"14. Appeal -Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie from any judgment, decree or final order or interim order of a single Judge of the High Court under this Act to a Division Bench of the High Court.”

The plaintiff says that since the suit has been filed in the admiralty jurisdiction pertaining to a maritime claim, it is the appeal provision in the Act of 2017 which will hold sway over the appeal provision in the more general statute that is the Act of 2015.

4. In support of the plaintiffs contention that the present appeal is maintainable as Section 14 of the Act of 2017 permits every interim order to be amenable to appeal, the plaintiff has referred to an order dated January 24, 2020 passed by the Calcutta High Court in APO No.180 of 2019 (Rigveda Maritime Pte. Ltd vs. Sohom Shipping Pvt. Ltd). In the short order, Section 13 of the Act of 2015 and Section 14 of the Act of 2017 were noticed before it was held, inter alia, as follows:

“In view of the wide amplitude of Section 14 of the Act of 2017 and the 2017 Act being later in point of time, having the effect of overriding Section 13(2) of the Act of 2015, where both Acts are Acts of Parliament, there is no impediment to receiving the present appeal arising out of an order by which the court refused to immediately conclude the sale of the vessel...”

5. The defendant contends that Section 13 of the Act of 2015 was substantially amended in 2018 and when such amendment was introduced, the Act of 2017 was already in force. It is suggested that since the amendment came to be operational in 2018, the overriding nature of the provision in Section 13 of the Act of 2015 would hold the field notwithstanding Section 14 of the Act of 2017. Apart from the fact that an amendment to an existing statute may not be read in the manner that the defendant suggests, there is a more fundamental aspect to the matter. There can be no doubt that the present suit was filed in the admiralty jurisdiction of this court and pertains to a maritime claim. The cause of action of the plaintiff is the mis-delivery of the goods by the carrier. The plaintiff is the consignee indicated in the bill of lading and the defendant is the carrier.

6. When a suit has been instituted under the Act of 2017 by invoking the admiralty jurisdiction in pursuance of a maritime claim, the provisions of the Act of 2017 would continue to govern the action. Here again, the defendant h