Introduction
Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter "the Act") provides that "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". Thus, Section 8 of the Act creates a bar against the remedy of Revision against "any" interlocutory order. The way the section has been framed, it appears to have an all-encompassing effect of barring all interlocutory orders from the purview of review. In the present article, however, we shall understand the de facto effect and purview of Section 8, as adopted by the Courts of the nation. The issue of bar against Section 8 of the Act, has resurfaced considering a catena of recent judgements of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the cases of Sai World v. R.G. Bio Cosmetic (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3266, Pankaj Arora v. Anil Kumar Bansal, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2659, Shivank Udyog Ltd. v. Surender Kaur, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3034, &Dilip Rawal v. Mothers Pride Education Personna (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4021, wherein the Court has gone on to outrightly dismiss the Civil Revision Petitions filed by the parties against the orders passed by the subordinate Commercial Courts without getting into the substance of the impugned orders and merits of the case. This resurfaces the question of whether the bar under Section 8 of the Act is absolute or if there are any exceptions to the same.
Interlocutory Order – Is it defined?
What becomes of paramount consideration in the instant case is to first understand what does an "Interlocutory Order" mean? The Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Amar Nath v. State of Haryana (1977) 4 SCC 137, defined the term as follows,
"The term "interlocutory order" is a term of well known legal significance and does not present any serious difficulty. It has been used in various statutes including the Code of Civil Procedure, letters patent of the High Courts and other like statutes. In Webster's New World Dictionary "interlocutory" has been defined as an order other than final decision. Decided cases have laid down that interlocutory orders to be appealable must be those which decide the rights and liabilities of the parties concerning a particular aspect."
The question of which orders are to be considered as interlocutory orders so as to fall under the purview of the bar of Section 8 is of significance. Any litigant, if aggrieved of an order of any Court, would have the remedy of an Appeal. This remedy of Appeal has, however, been restricted under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to an exhaustive list of orders, as provided under Order 43 Rule 1, against which an appeal can be preferred. Therefore, in cases of all other orders which are not expressly included in the list under Order 43 Rule 1, no appeal can be preferred and thus, the remedy left with the litigant is to file a Civil Revision Application against the said order. Section 8 seeks to create a bar even against this remedy of Civil Revision. Therefore, it is imperative to understand if the bar under Section 8 is applicable against all orders, except the ones mentioned under Order 43 Rule 1 or should it be open for the Courts, in the facts and circumstances of each case, to consider whether the impugned order is hit by the bar of Section 8 of the Act or not.
To understand which order can be considered as an interlocutory order and which is not an interlocutory order, we shall import the reasoning from the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgement in the case of Amar Nath v. State of Haryana (1977) 4 SCC 137, wherein the Hon'ble Court was dealing with the revisional power under the Criminal Procedure Code and held that,
"Any order which substantially affects the right of the accused, or decides certain rights of the parties cannot be said to be an interlocutory order so as to bar a revison to the High Court against that order ... But orders which are matters of moment and which affect or adjudicate the rights of the accused or a particular aspect of the trial cannot be said to be interlocutory order so as to be outside the purview of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court."
Further, in another of its judgements dealing with the revisional power under the Criminal Procedure Code, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.K. Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2000) 6 SCC 195 held that,
"It is now well-nigh settled that in deciding whether an order challenged is interlocutory or not as for Section 397(2) of the Code, the sole test is not whether such order was passed during the interim stage ... The feasible test is whether by upholding the objections raised by a party, it would result in culminating the proceedings, if so any order passed on such objections would not be merely interlocutory in nature as envisaged in Section 397(2) of the Code."
This yardstick recognized by the Hon'ble Apex Court in determining if any particular order is of the nature of an interlocutory order or not, even while being with regard to the Criminal Procedure Code, shall be equally significant and cardinal for Civil/Commercial disputes. The yardsticks devised in the cases of Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC 551, Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania (1981) 4 SCC 8, & other such cases have also been adopted for Civil/Commercial disputes. One such pronouncement where the Courts have adopted the above reasoning in the context of interlocutory orders in Civil/Commercial disputes is of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of P. Udaya Bhaskara Reddy v. Sreepada Real Estates & Developers, 2024 SCC OnLine AP 4102 wherein the court held that,
"An interlocutory order inSection 8ofCommercialCourtsAct is one made or given during the progress of an action or proceeding which does not finally dispose of the rights of the parties. The test to determination is not whether such order was passed during interim stage. The feasible test is whether by upholding the objections raised by a party, it would result in culminating the proceedings or not. If it so results, it would not be merely interlocutory in nature."
However, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court doesn't seem to align with the reasoning adopted by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India with regard to the classification of which orders shall amount to interlocutory orders and which shall not. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its judgement in the case ofRupin Associates v. Axis Bank Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4273, has instead of going into the classification of what constitutes an interlocutory order under the Commercial Courts Act has rather adopted a rigid straight jacket approach and has barred the remedy of revision from any interlocutory order of a Commercial Court.
Is the litigant really remediless?
Now that we are aware of the bar operating against the interlocutory orders of the Commercial Courts, an important question needs to be addressed as to what remedy remains for the litigant. The remedy of Civil Revision Petition before the High Court can be availed under 2 different provisions, namely, Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and Article 227 of the Constitution of India. What is barred under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act is the remedy of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, while a petition Article 227 of the Constitution of India can still be preferred against such an order of the Commercial Court at the District level. The power of the High Courts under Article 227 is a supervisory jurisdiction for the purpose of keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of its jurisdiction. However, this power of supervision is to be used sparingly by the High Courts as has also been laid down in the pronouncements of the various High Courts. The Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Navayuga Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Structicon India (P) Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine AP 4398 has held that,
"37.So, notwithstanding the bar of the remedy under the statute, the jurisdiction under Article 227 can be exercised. The High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence when there has been a patent perversity; a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted and to ensure that the law is followed by the Courts by exercising jurisdiction vested in them and by not declining to exercise the jurisdiction vested."
Further, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has in its judgement in the case of Black Diamond Trackparts Pvt. Ltd. v. Black Diamond Motors Pvt. Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3946, has held that,
"31. ... 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 arevisionapplication under CPC was maintainable but which remedy has been taken away by theCommercialCourtsAct, 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. theCommercialCourtsAct, and ensuring that such exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court does not negate the legislative intent and purpose behind theCommercialCourtsAct and does not come in the way of expeditious disposal of commercial suits."
Similar has been the view of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court as held in its judgement in the case of Vivaan Solar (P) Ltd. v. Larsen & Toubro Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 1430.
Conclusion
Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act was introduced with the intent of providing finality to the orders of the Commercial Courts for the expeditious disposal of commercial suits. While the intent of the legislature is to be respected and given effect in practice, it is also imperative to ensure that the claws of the legislative enactment do not trap the innocents and prove to be counterproductive. The intent of the term "Interlocutory order" as used under Section 8 of the Act has to be understood and appreciated instead of adhering to the letter of the law. It is indeed crucial that routine procedural orders of Commercial Courts are not made a subject of litigation but at the same time it is also crucial to recognize that not all orders are merely procedural so as to bar them under the guise of being interlocutory orders. As held in the cases of K.K. Patel (supra) & P. Udaya Bhaskara Reddy (supra), certain orders which, if allowed, in favour of the applicant can result into final adjudication of the commercial suit and therefore to consider such orders, which can bring finality to commercial suit, as interlocutory orders and bar the remedy against such orders would instead be counterproductive and defeat the purpose of expeditious disposal of commercial suits. To conclude, the author is of the opinion that the Courts require to adopt an expansive interpretation of the term "interlocutory order" under the Commercial Courts Act, as adopted by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the P. Udaya Bhaskara Reddy (supra) judgement.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
