The court ruled that an order impacting substantial rights does not qualify as purely interlocutory, allowing revision under Article 227 despite commercial disputes being generally barred from such review.

ORDER :

G.R. Swaminathan, J.

The plaintiff in O.S No.7 of 2023 on the file of the Sub Court, Kulithalai is the revision petitioner herein. The revision petition is directed against the order dated 02.02.2024 in I.A No.2 of 2023 in the suit.

2. The case of the revision petitioner/plaintiff is as follows :

The plaintiff is the managing partner of a firm running a licensed packaged drinking water unit in Kulithalai. The defendants approached the plaintiff and expressed their interest in becoming their dealer. They, however, insisted on using their brand name “Ocean Waves”. The plaintiff entered into a dealership agreement with the defendants on 19.10.2019. Agreement was to come into force with effect from 14.11.2019 and was valid for a period of three years. It was renewed. Subsequently, the business relationship came under strain. The defendants owed a sum of Rs.7,07,332/-. The plaintiff kept ready the packaged drinking water bottles as per the defendants' specifications but the defendants did not lift them. The packed bottles are remaining in the plaintiff's premises. Since the defendants remained unresponsive, COS No.7 of 2023 was instituted on the file of the Sub Court, Kulithalai on 07.08.2023.

3. Since the goods are perishable in nature, the plaintiff filed I.A No.2 of 2023 for appointment of an advocate commissioner to sell the same. The case of the plaintiff was that he had already packed and labelled the goods as per the defendants' specifications and that they will have to be disposed of in the market at once. Otherwise, they will become unfit for consumption. The court below concluded that no material has been marked on the side of the plaintiff to show that an agreement was entered into between the parties. It was further observed that in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was not mentioned as to when the bottles were filled and when the goods would expire. The court below dismissed the I.A. Challenging the said order, this civil revision petition has been filed.

4. The revision petitioner filed additional typed set of papers enclosing a copy of the dealership agreement dated 19.10.2019. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that due to sheer efflux of time, the goods are past their expiry date and that they may be ordered to be disposed of.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection. According to her, in view of Section 8 of of the COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT , 2015, this civil revision petition itself is not maintainable. She reiterated the reasons set out in the impugned order passed by the court below and called for dismissal of this civil revision petition.

6. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. Let me deal with the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of this civil revision petition. Section 8 of the COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT , 2015 is as follows :

“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 jurisdiction, and any such challenge, subject to the provisions of section 13, shall be raised only in an appeal against the decree of the Commercial Court.”

The scope and