specifically provided under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In the context of the present case, this would translate to the statement that an appeal under the Letters Patent (or under the Delhi High Court Act, 1966) is barred under Section 13 of the said Act, unless an appeal was specifically provided under the CPC. In that case, the court went on to hold that such an appeal was provided under the said 1996 Act and, therefore, an appeal would be maintainable before the Division Bench. But, in the present case the impugned order is not appealable under the CPC. Therefore, the appeal would not be maintainable. It is clear that the view that has been taken by us does not, in any way, militate against the decision of the Supreme Court in Arun Dev Upadhyaya (supra) . The said decision recognized the fact that Section 13 bars an appeal under the Letters patent and, consequently, under any other law for the time being in force unless an appeal was specifically provided under the said 1996 Act which, in the present case, would be relatable to the said Act and the CPC. It is clear that from the wordings used in Section 13 that insofar as orders are concerned, appeals shall lie only from such orders that are specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of CPC. Section 13(2) further fortifies the position that no appeal shall lie from any order or decree of a Commercial Division or a
