Appeal Against Ad-Interim Injunction Order in Commercial Suit is Maintainable Under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC

The Appellant (Defendant No. 4) filed an appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, read with Order XLIII Rule 1 of the CPC.

The appeal challenged an ad-interim order dated 07.01.2026, wherein the learned Single Judge directed that property title deeds remain with Defendant No. 5 while the stay application remained pending.

Respondent No. 1 raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability, arguing that the order was not a "final" adjudication of the interim application and thus did not qualify for appeal under the parameters set by the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court Act.

Whether an appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, is maintainable against an ad-interim order that does not finally decide the injunction application.

Whether the restrictive definition of "judgment" under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, or Letters Patent principles applies to appeals specifically governed by Order XLIII Rule 1 of the CPC.

The Court primarily applied Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which provides that an appeal lies from orders "specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of the CPC".

It relied on Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the CPC, which permits appeals against orders passed under Rules 1, 2, 2A, 4, or 10 of Order XXXIX.

The Court distinguished Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania (1981), noting it dealt with Letters Patent appeals rather than statutory CPC appeals.

It further followed the precedent in A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan (2000), which established that Rule 1 of Order XXXIX is the repository of power for all injunctions (ex-parte, ad-interim, or temporary) and thus any such order is appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1(r).

The Court reasoned that the maintainability of the appeal is governed by the Commercial Courts Act, not the Delhi High Court Act or Letters Patent.

Section 13(1A) of the 2015 Act contains a proviso explicitly tethering the right of appeal to the list of orders found in Order XLIII of the CPC.

The Court observed that Order XLIII Rule 1(r) uses the term "order" broadly, which encompasses both final and ad-interim directions.

It distinguished cases cited by the Respondent (such as Perpetual Vision LLP), noting that those cases involved "mere issuance of notice" under Order XXXIX Rule 3, which is not an appealable order, whereas the present case involved a substantive ad-interim direction regarding title deeds.

The Court concluded that since the order fell within the ambit of Order XXXIX, it was automatically appealable via the statutory gateway of Section 13.

It clarified that an appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act read with Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the CPC lies against an ad-interim order granting or refusing an injunction, regardless of whether the order is "final" or termed a "judgment" under the Delhi High Court Act.

The preliminary objection was overruled, and the matter was listed for hearing on merits on 09.03.2026.