ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Salem, dismissing the petition filed by the revision petitioner/defendant seeking leave of the court to file additional written statement.

2. The respondent herein has filed a suit seeking declaration that it was the proprietor of the trademark/label SABU, injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant from infringing the trademark SABU and also for other incidental reliefs.

3. The revision petitioner herein filed a written statement and resisted the suit on various grounds. While the suit was pending, the revision petitioner filed a petition under Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC to receive additional written statement to raise certain further pleas which were not in the original written statement.

4. The court below dismissed the petition filed by the revision petitioner seeking leave of the court to file additional written statement by relying on time limit fixed under Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC for filing written statement. The court below in its impugned order has stated that as per the amended CPC applicable to the Commercial Courts, the outer time limit for filing a written statement is 120 days and on expiry of the said time limit, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement. The learned Judge observed in the impugned order that though Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC enables the parties to file subsequent pleadings, the revision petitioner cannot take advantage of the same in view of the fact that under the Commercial Courts Act, the suit shall be disposed of within a period of one year. The learned Judge proceeded to observe that the main suit was of the year 2019 and hence after the lapse of nearly 2 years, it is not open to the revision petitioner / defendant to file additional written statement and consequently dismissed the petition seeking leave of the court to present additional written statement.

5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the typed set of papers.

6. At the out set, the learned counsel for the respondent raised an objection with regard to the maintainability of the revision. The learned counsel had drawn the attention of the court to Section 8 of Commercial Courts Act which bars revision against interlocutory orders.

7. Section 8 of Commercial Courts Act reads 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.”

8. It was argued before this court that the correctness or otherwise of the order impugned in this revision is not revisable by this court in view of the specific bar under Section 8 of Commercial Courts Act and if at all aggrieved, the remedy of the revision petitioner would be to canvass the correctness of the same in an appeal filed against the decree passed by the commercial court.

9. In the considered opinion of this Court, Section 8 of Commercial Courts Act which is part of an ordinary statute cannot control the supervisory jurisdiction available to the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Apex Court in L. Chandrakumar Vs. Union of India reported in 1997 (3) SCC 261 held that the power of Judicial review under Article 226 and power of Superintendence conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to the High Courts cannot be taken away as the said power is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The said view was re-affirmed by the Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai & Others reported in 2003 6 SCC 675. Therefore, the bar created un