The Delhi High Court has held that an appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is maintainable against an ad-interim injunction order passed under Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

The Bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar has observed that as per Order XLIII Rule 1(r), an appeal shall lie against an ad- interim order refusing or granting an ad-interim injunction if the suit is governed by the CPC, irrespective of the nature of suit and regardless of the forum. Hence, instant appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of CPC read with Section 13 of the Act of 2015 is maintainable. However upon ultimate analysis, the threshold for interference may be kept very high so as to restrict the exercise of jurisdiction under appellate powers given under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the CPC.

The bench clarified that  since language of Section 10 of the Act of 1966 speaks of “judgment” passed in exercise of ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the fetters on the powers of Division Bench shall not apply as the suit was being tried under the provisions of the Act of 2015, which itself provides right to appeal as provided under Order XLIII of the CPC.

The issue raised was whether an appeal could lie against an ad-interim order that had not finally disposed of the interim application or the suit.

At the outset, a preliminary objection was raised by the contesting respondent, arguing that the appeal was not maintainable since the impugned order did not finally adjudicate the interim application, much less the suit itself. It was contended that appellate jurisdiction under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 could not be invoked unless there was a final determination of the lis.

Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania, as well as several Delhi High Court decisions, including Perpetual Vision LLP v. Vaibhav S Pingale, to argue that interlocutory orders are generally not appealable unless they satisfy specific parameters.

The appellant, however, contended that the appeal had been filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the CPC read with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and not under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966. It was argued that once the CPC expressly provides for an appeal against orders passed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, the same would be maintainable under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act.

Heavy reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s ruling in A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan, where it was categorically held that an appeal lies against an order granting or refusing an ad-interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC.

The Division Bench carefully examined the precedent in Shah Babulal Khimji and held that the decision arose in the context of a Letters Patent appeal under Clause 15 of the Bombay High Court Letters Patent. The present case, however, was materially distinguishable because the appeal was not under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966. The matter arose from a commercial dispute governed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Section 13 of the 2015 Act specifically allows appeals from orders enumerated under Order XLIII CPC.

The Court reiterated that judgments must be read in the context of the statutory framework under consideration and cannot be mechanically applied.

The Bench observed that Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC clearly provides that an appeal shall lie against an order passed under Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2, 2A, 4, or 10. The provision does not restrict the appeal only to final orders. The expression “order” would include both final and ad-interim orders.

The Court emphasized that if the same order had been passed by a regular civil court prior to the enactment of the Commercial Courts Act, an appeal would undoubtedly have been maintainable under the CPC. Therefore, merely because the dispute is being tried by a Commercial Court does not take away the statutory right of appeal provided under Order XLIII.

Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act provides that an appeal shall lie from orders specifically enumerated under Order XLIII CPC. The Court held that this provision is determinative of maintainability in commercial matters.

It further clarified that the fetters applicable to intra-court appeals under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 do not apply in cases governed by the Commercial Courts Act, since the latter is a self-contained code for appellate remedies in commercial disputes.

The Bench also distinguished earlier judgments, including Perpetual Vision LLP, noting that those cases involved mere issuance of notice under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC, which is not appealable under Order XLIII. In contrast, the present case involved a substantive ad-interim order affecting rights, which squarely fell within Rule 1(r).

The Delhi High Court held that an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC lies against an ad-interim order granting or refusing injunction. Such an appeal is maintainable under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The fact that the order is temporary or operative for a limited duration does not bar the appeal.

While upholding maintainability, the Court observed that the threshold for interference in such appeals remains high and must be exercised with restraint.

Case Details

Case Title: Asian Hotels North Limited Versus Exclusive Capital Limited & Ors. 

Citation: JURISHOUR-198-HC-2026(Ker) 

Case No.: FAO(OS) (COMM) 31/2026, CM APPL. 11415/2026, CM APPL. 11416/2026 & CM APPL. 11417/2026

Date:  27/02/2026

Counsel For  Petitioner: Rajiv Nayyar, Sr. Advocate

Counsel For Respondent: Siddharth Yadav, Sr. Advocate

Read More: JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : MARCH 3, 2026