MS Fiberfill Engineers & Anr. v. MS Rampur Engineering Company Limited & Anr.

1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 115 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as “CPC”] and under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 16.09.2022 passed by the learned Trial Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”].

2. Learned Counsel for the Respondents raises the issue of maintainability. He draws the attention of the Court to Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 [hereinafter referred to as the “CC Act”] to submit that the present Petition is barred by the provisions of Section 8 of the CC Act.

3. This Court agrees. Section 8 of the CC Act sets out that no civil revision petition shall be entertained against any interlocutory order. It is apposite to set out Section 8 of the CC Act below: “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.”

4. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Black Diamond Track Parts (P) Ltd. v. Black Diamond Motors (P) Ltd.[1] considered the scope of Section 8 of the CC Act and it was held that CC Act expressly bars the remedy of a revision petition filed under section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The relevant extract of the Black Diamond Track Parts (P) Ltd. case is reproduced below:

2021 SCC OnLine Del 3946 would be derailed and would not come to fruition for many years. It was observed that though Article 227 is a constitutional provision which remains untouched by an non obstante Clause 5 of the Arbitration Act but what is important to note is that though petitions can be filed under Article 227 against judgments allowing or dismissing first appeals under the Arbitration Act, yet the High Court would be extremely circumspect in interfering with the same taking into account the statutory policy, so that interference is restricted to orders which are patently lacking in inherent jurisdiction. Thus, though we are of the view that gates of Article 227 ought not to be opened with respect to orders in commercial suits at the level of the District Judge against which a revision application under CPC was maintainable but which remedy has been taken away by the Commercial Courts Act, but abiding by the judgments aforesaid, hold that it cannot be said to be the law that jurisdiction under Article 227 is completely barred. However the said jurisdiction is to be exercised very sparingly and more sparingly with respect to orders in such suits which under the CPC were revisable and which remedy has been taken away by a subsequent legislation i.e. the Commercial Courts Act, and ensuring that such exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court does not negate the legislative intent and purpose behind the Commercial Courts Act and does not come in the way of expeditious disposal of commercial suits.” [Emphasis Supplied]

5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petition has been filed under both Section 115 of the CPC as well as under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He however, submits that he will be filing an appropriate Petition for redressal of his grievances.

6. In view of the aforegoing, the present Petition is dismissed. The pending Application also stands disposed of. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law for redressal of his grievances.

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J JULY 7, 2025