JUDGMENT :

P.Naveen Rao, J.

This appeal is preferred challenging the order dated 17.10.2022 passed in I.A.No.84 of 2022 in COS No.31 of 2019 by the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. By this order, the learned trial Judge dismissed I.A.No.84 of 2022 filed under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure.

2. When the appeal was preferred the registry raised objection on maintainability of the appeal.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted reply by placing reliance on Sections 13 and 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (for short the ‘Act, 2015’). Not satisfied with the explanation offered, the matter was placed before this Court.

4. This Court having prima-facie looked into the provisions in Section 8 and 13 of the Act, 2015, over-ruled the office objection by reserving right to the respondent to raise objection on maintainability of the appeal.

5. The respondent filed counter affidavit and learned counsel for the respondent raised preliminary objection on the maintainability of appeal.

6. According to learned Counsel Smt Manjari S. Ganu, in view of the provisions contained in Section 13 read with Section 8 of the Act, 2015, no appeal is maintainable against an order passed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC rejecting the application to reject the plaint.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant sought to contend that on a reading of Section 8 of the Act, 2015, it is apparent that if a person is aggrieved by an interlocutory order of the trial Court, appeal is maintainable and therefore, the present appeal is validly filed.

8. Sections 8 and 13 of the Act, 2015 read as under :

“Section 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.

Section 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 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 with the provisions of this Act.”

9. Though reading in isolation, it appears as if Section 13 (1-A) is wider in scope and envisages that against any order of Commercial Court appeal can be filed, but the scope of Section 13 (1-A) is constrained by proviso appended to Sub-Section (1-A). While Section 1-A provides remedy in the form of appeal against any judgment or order passed by the Commercial Court at the level of District Judge or Commercial Division of the High Court to the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court, the proviso appended to Section 13 restrict the scope of application of Section 1-A. The proviso clearly holds that no appeal shall lie from orde