PANKAJ ARORA vs MR ANIL KUMAR BANSAL & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~95 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 24.04.2025 + C.R.P. 21/2025 PANKAJ ARORA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Raghav Mahajan, Advocate. versus MR ANIL KUMAR BANSAL & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Manoj Khanna, Mr. M.K. Singh and Mr. Ridham Jindal, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral) CM APPL. 23875/2025 [Early hearing] 1. This is an Application seeking early hearing in the matter. 2. For the reasons as stated in the Application, the same is allowed and the matter is taken up for hearing today. C.R.P. 21/2025 3. The present Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking to challenge an order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial), Patiala House Court, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”]. 4. Learned Counsel for the Respondents draws the attention of the Court to Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 [hereinafter referred to as Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:26.04.2025 C.R.P. 21/2025 Page 1 of 4 17:51:44 the “CC Act”]to submit that the present Petition is barred by the provisions of Section 8 of the CC Act. 5. This Court agrees. Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 [hereinafter referred to as 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