order‟. Section 13(1), (1A) or proviso to sub-section (1) or even sub-section (2) does not use expression „interlocutory order‟. The expression used therein is the „order‟. Section 8 which uses the expression „interlocutory order‟ and bars the remedy of revision, makes the same subject to Section 13. So, in our view, the expression „order‟ in Section 13 would include the „interlocutory order‟ as also the „final order‟, which is other than the „judgment‟ or „decree‟. So, the order may be interlocutory order, or it may be final order, in the sense, not deciding the commercial dispute vide judgment or decree, but maintaining its character as „order‟, such order if covered under any of the clauses (a) to (w) of Order 43 CPC, would be appealable under Section 13(1) read with its proviso. In other words, if the order is interlocutory, then the remedy of appeal would be there, but subject to the proviso to Section 13(1A). When it comes to the final order, the remedy would again be of the appeal, but subject to the same proviso. In our view, for the purposes of Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC and the appeal against such order under sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, the distinction between interlocutory or final order loses importance.
