The proviso in Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act applies to both subsections, allowing for appeals under Article 227.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. ROUTRAY, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.K. Parija, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. B.P. Das, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. M.K. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. D. Mishra, learned Advocate for the Opposite Party.

2. Present C.M.P. is directed against the order dated 09.09.2025 of the leaned Commercial Court, Cuttack passed in Execution Case No.61 of 2024, wherein the prayer of the J.Dr. under Order 21 Rule 11, C.P.C. read with Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was rejected.

3. Before entering into the merit of the dispute, a preliminary objection is raised by the present Opposite Party, who is the D.Hr., regarding maintainability of the present C.M.P. under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. It is submitted by Mr. M.K. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the Opposite Party that as per Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 all such judgment or order of the Commercial Court below the level of District Judge may be appealed before the Commercial Appellate Court and cannot be tested under exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that since after closure of sub-section (1) of Section 13 a “full stop (.)” is occurring whereas the “colon (:)” is occurring at the end of sub-section (1-A), the proviso coming after sub-section(1-A) would not qualify to such provisions mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 13.

5. Conversely, refuting to such objections raised by the Opposite Party, Mr. A.K. Parija, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner submits that, the provisions of the Act, i.e. the Commercial Courts Act, cannot be interpreted in such a way that are submitted by the Opposite Party. Specifically, the proviso contained in Section 13, appearing after sub-section (1-A) by its plain reading and meaning qualifies to both the provisions under sub-section (1) and sub-section (1-A). It is also submitted that putting the “full-stop (.)” or “colon (:)” after the sub- section (1) and sub-section (1-A) does not make any distinction in the meaning of the interpretation of the proviso attached to Section 13.

6. In view of the rival contentions raised with regard to maintainability of the present proceeding before this Court, it needs to refer the provisions under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. It reads as follows:-

“13. Appeals from decrees of Commercial Courts and Commercial Divisions.—

(1) Any person aggrieved by the judgment or order of a Commercial Court below the level of a District Judge may appeal to the Commercial Appellate Court within a period of sixty days from the date of judgment or order.

(1-A) Any person aggrieved by the judgment or order of a Commercial Court at the level of District Judge exercising original civil jurisdiction or, as the case may be, Commercial Division of a High Court may appeal to the Commercial Appellate Division of that High Court within a period of sixty days from the date of the judgment or order:

Provided that an appeal shall lie from such orders passed by a Commercial Division or a Commercial Court that are specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) as amended by this Act and section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996).

(2) 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 w