The Delhi High Court has ruled that he bar provided under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act against entertaining revision application or petition against any interlocutory order of f a Commercial Court, is not applicable to petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The bench noted that a statute could not affect the jurisdiction and powers of the High Court under Article 227.
Two petitions had been filed challenging the orders of a District Judge, Commercial Jurisdiction wherein one of the petitions challenged the dismissal of application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, while the other petition challenged dismissal of application under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC for condonation of delay in filing the written statement. The court found that the use of the word "petition" in Section 8 is not and could not have been with reference to a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and is with reference to a revision application/petition only.
It relied on the Supreme Court judgement of Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai where it was held that curtailment of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court did not take away and could not have taken away it's constitutional jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari to a civil court, nor was it's power of superintendence can be taken away or whittled down.
The High Court found that a jurisdiction must be exercised very sparingly with respect to orders that are revisable under CPC and for which remedy has been taken away by a subsequent legislation (Commercial Courts Act).