MINOSHA INDIA LIMITED vs MR. DEEPAK TIWARI & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 18.07.2025 + C.R.P. 342/2023 & CM APPL. 60467/2023 MINOSHA INDIA LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhimanyu Mahajan, Ms. Niyati Kohli, Mr. Pratham Vir Aggarwal, Ms. Anubha & Mr. Mayank, Advocates. versus MR. DEEPAK TIWARI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral) 1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as “CPC”] impugning the order dated 26.08.2023 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court)-02, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”]. 2. The attention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is drawn to the provisions of Section 8 of the CC Act, which sets out that no civil revision petition shall be entertained against an interlocutory order passed by the Commercial Courts. 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:20.07.2025 C.R.P. 342/2023 Page 1 of 3 12:15:13 provisions of section 13, shall be raised only in an appeal against the decree of the Commercial Court.” 3. 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 hel