An appeal under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act is maintainable only against orders specified in Order XLIII of the CPC, and the dismissal of an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC is not appealable.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 11.03.2024 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru [commercial court] in I.A.No.12 in Commercial O.S.No.336/2022.

2. The appellant was arrayed as defendant in the said suit, and it had filed the said application (I.A.12) under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure [CPC], contending that the learned commercial court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. The said application was dismissed with costs by the impugned order.

3. The question to be considered at the threshold is whether an appeal against an order rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC is maintainable, in view of Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act , 2015 [CC Act].

4. At the outset, we would consider it apposite to set out Sub- section (1A) of Section 13 of the CC Act. The same is reproduced below.

"13. Appeals from decrees of Commercial Courts and Commercial Divisions –

**

(1A) 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).

5. The proviso to Sub-section (1A) of Section 13 of the CC Act provides that the appeal would lie against the orders passed by the Commercial Division or a Commercial Court that are specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of CPC as amended by the CC Act.

6. There is no dispute that an order dismissing an application under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC is not an order which is covered under Order XLIII of CPC. Notwithstanding the same, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appeal is maintainable as the impugned order passed by the learned commercial court has the trappings of finality and is thus to be construed as a judgment passed by the commercial court. He submitted that Section 13 of the CC Act, as amended by virtue of the "Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018" [the CC Amendment Act 2018], stipulates that an appeal would lie against a ‘judgment or order’ as against a ‘decision’ as mentioned under the unamended section.

7. He also submitted that a writ petition against the impugned order would not be an apposite remedy, as it is incompatible with the legislative intent of an expeditious resolution of commercial disputes. Additionally, this court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India, would not examine or re-examine the factual disputes. He also submitted that judicial superintendence under Article 227 must be exercised very sparingly.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length.

9. In our view, the question of whether an appeal lies against a commercial court’s order that is not enumerated in Order XLIII of the CPC is no longer res integra. The same is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court inKandla Export Corporation & Anr. v. M/s. OCI Corporation & Anr. , (2018) 14 SCC 715 , whereby the Supreme Court has held that the scope of an appeal under Section 13 (1) of the Commercial Courts Act is controlled by the proviso to the said Sub-section. It is material to note that the proviso to Subsection (1A) of Section 13 of the CC Act is identically worded as the proviso of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 as in force prior to the amendment in the year 2018. The relevant extract of the said decision is set out be