Judicial intervention under Article 227 requires the existence of an appeal route under statutory provisions.

J U D G M E N T

This Original Petition has been filed challenging Ext.P10 order, whereby an application filed by the first respondent for staying further proceedings in A.R.No.1/2024 before the Sole Arbitrator has been allowed.

2. The respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that Ext.P10 order is appealable and cannot be challenged in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India . Reliance is based on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in O.P.(C).No.1661/2025, wherein this Court held that the remedy is to approach the Commercial Appellate Court and parties cannot directly file an application under of the . The learned counsel for the respondent also relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Sleebachen v. State of Kerala , 2024(4) KLT 449, wherein this Court held that any person aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Commercial Court below the level of a District Judge with respect to a territory over which the High Court has no ordinary original civil jurisdiction may appeal to the commercial appellate court constituted under Section 3A of the Commercial Courts Act , 2015. It is hence pointed out that the order now challenged before this Court is clearly appealable and hence the petitioner ought to have challenge the same in a properly constituted appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai , 2003 KHC 1144 ; Spartek Ceramics India Limited Chennai v. M/s. Spartek Agencies, Chennai , 2025 KHC 2537 and Parukutty Amma v. Ramanunni Nair , 1966 KHC 50 , in support of the contention that this Court has ample powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to entertain a challenge. In Surya Dev Rai (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering the question whether interlocutory orders passed by courts subordinate to the High Court against which the remedy of revision has been excluded can file an application under of the . The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the affirmative. The Court held that supervisory jurisdiction under of the is exercised for keeping subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. The Court laid down the instances where this Court can exercise jurisdiction under of the . There can be no quarrel regarding the dictum laid down in the above case. The said dictum will not come in aid of a person who instead of preferring an appeal which is available under the statute directly approaches the High Court under of the .

4. In Spartek Ceramics India (Supra), the High Court of Madras was considering the case of a bar of entertaining a revision against an interlocutory application contained in Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act , 2015. The Court held that there was no bar in exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and held that the power under is not intended to correct mere errors of fact or law and should only be exercised when an error is manifest and apparent causing grave injustice or gross failure of justice. The said judgment also will not apply to the facts of this case, since it is not a case of a bar of remedy, but a case where a specific remedy is available.

5. In Parukutty Amma (Supra), the learned Single Judge was considering the question of transposing a defendant as a plaintiff in a suit for partition. The court held that exercise of power can even be suo motu, even without an application by a third party. The said judgment also will not come to the aid of the petitioner since the facts are not at all similar. I hence find justification in the contention of the respondent that the petitioner ought to have availed of the remedy of appea