JUDGMENT : 1. The point of maintainability is raised by the respondents. 2. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 10th May 2018 passed by a learned single judge of this court dismissing the application (GA No. 960 of 2018) of the added defendant, the appellant for striking off its name from the array of parties. 3. The respondents say that the appeal is not maintainable under section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Section 13 is set out hereunder: “13. Appeals from decrees of Commercial Courts and Commercial Divisions [(1) Any person aggrieved by the judgment or order of a Commercial Court below the level of a District Judge may appeal to the Commercial Appellate Court within a period of sixty days from the date of judgment or order. (1A) Any person aggrieved by the judgment or order of a Commercial Court at the level of District Judge exercising original civil jurisdiction or, as the case may be, Commercial Division of a High Court may appeal to the Commercial Appellate Division of that High Court within a period of sixty days from the date of the judgment or order: PROVIDED that an appeal shall lie from such orders passed by a commercial Division or a Commercial Court that are specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) as amended by this Act and section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996).] (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or Letters Patent of a High Court, no appeal shall lie from any order or decree of a Commercial Division or Commercial Court otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act.” 4. Mr. Malay Ghosh, learned senior advocate for the appellant very painstakingly argued that section 13(1A) provided for an appeal to the commercial appellate division of this court from any judgment or order of its commercial division. He argued that the proviso to that sub-section provided that an appeal would lie from any order, an appeal of which is provided by interalia Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. Sub-section (2) enacted that an appeal would not lie from any other order or decree, notwithstanding any other law including the Letters Patent. He argued that the proviso to that sub-section provided that an appeal would lie from any order, an appeal of which is provided by interalia Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. Sub-section (2) enacted that an appeal would not lie from any other order or decree, notwithstanding any other law including the Letters Patent. The reference to judgment in sub-section (1) should be construed to mean any judgment pronounced by the commercial court. Hence the impugned judgment and order is appealable. 5. We are unable to accept this contention. Section 13(1A) allows an appeal from a judgment or order of a commercial division of this Court. The proviso to it says that an appeal shall lie only from orders which are appealable under Order XLIII of the Civil Procedure Code. Section 13(2) makes it explicit that this would be the position “notwithstanding any other law for the time being in force or Letters Patent of a High Court”. Clause 15 of the Letters Patent says that an appeal shall lie from a judgment. This sub-section, thus, clearly excludes appeals from a judgment provided in clause 15 of our Letters Patent. This sub-section adds ‘decree’ with order. The impugned judgment and order is a judgment under clause 15. If this judgment is held to be appealable under section 13(1A), then sub-section (2) is rendered meaningless. 6. On a meaningful and purposive interpretation of the various sub-sections of section 13 of the said Act, only this view is tenable only that a judgment, the ordering part of which is a decree or an order which is appealable under Order XLIII of the Civil Procedure Code or section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is an appealable judgment and order under section 13 (1A) of the said Act. 7. For those reasons, we are of the opinion that we have no jurisdiction to hear this appeal. 8. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the case at all. Needless to mention, all points on merits are kept open. 9. We dispose of this appeal (APO 173 of 2018) by not entertaining it on the point of jurisdiction stated above.