ORDER : (Per Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya) The present Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order dated 19.03.2024 passed by the Commercial Court at Hyderabad rejecting an application filed by the petitioners for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. The plaintiff/respondent herein had filed a Suit for a direction on the defendants/petitioners herein to pay Rs.29,78,10,763/- to the plaintiff along with future interest @ 24% p.a. The petitioners filed the present Interlocutory application in the said Suit for rejection of the plaint. The Commercial Court dismissed the petitioners’ application on the ground that the Suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff was within the period of limitation i.e., from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 covered by the orders passed by the Supreme Court in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic. The Trial Court was of the view that the issue of limitation, being a mixed question of fact and law, cannot be decided at the threshold and would require adjudication of the pleadings and evidence which are to be led by the parties. 3. The other objection taken by the petitioners was on the respondent circumventing the mandatory requirement of pre-institution mediation under section 12A of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Trial Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. vs. Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd., (2022) 10 SCC 1 and held that the mandatory nature of section 12A of the Act would only be made applicable on and from 20.08.2022 as held by Patil Automation (supra) and that the Suit, having been filed on 30.11.2021, would hence be saved from the embargo. 4. The learned Government Pleader for Arbitration appearing for the petitioners relies on Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi, (2024) 5 SCC 815 and Patil Automation (supra) from the statutory mandate in section 12A of the 2015 Act to urge that the plaintiff should have first exhausted the pre-institution mediation requirement since the Suit did not contemplate urgent interim relief. Counsel submits that the judgment in Patil Automation (supra) only declared that a Suit violating the mandate of section 12A of the 2015 Act must be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. effective from 20.08.2022 which would be limited to the declaration itself and not the statutory mandate contained in section 12A of the 2015 Act. Counsel submits that the judgment in Patil Automation (supra) only declared that a Suit violating the mandate of section 12A of the 2015 Act must be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. effective from 20.08.2022 which would be limited to the declaration itself and not the statutory mandate contained in section 12A of the 2015 Act. Counsel also relies on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in TATA Consumer Products Limited v. ITC Limited (C.M.A.No.69 of 2023, dated 21.04.2023) which reiterated the mandate of section 12A of the 2015 Act. 5. Counsel argues that the Civil Revision Petition is maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and relies on a Division Bench decision of this Court in M.V.Ramana Rao v. N.Subash (C.R.P.No.6745 of 2018, dated 10.04.2019). Counsel also relies on M/s.Harpreet Singh Chabra v. Mrs.Suneet Kaur Sahney (C.O.M.C.A.No.2 of 2018, dated 07.09.2018), which held that Article 227 of the Constitution can be invoked by the High Court despite a bar on filing of Civil Revision Applications from an interlocutory order of a Commercial Court under section 8 of the 2015 Act. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff submits on the maintainability of the Civil Revision Petition and that section 8 of the 2015 Act bars Civil Revision Applications from an order passed by the Commercial Court. Counsel submits that Order XX of the C.P.C., as amended by the 2015 Act makes it mandatory that a judgment must be pronounced within 90 days from the conclusion of arguments. Counsel submits that filing of the present Civil Revision Petition is only to prolong the proceedings contrary to the mandate of the 2015 Act. Counsel submits that in any event, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the C.P.C along with the Suit seeking urgent relief. 7. It is also submitted that Patil Automation (supra) is prospective in its application i.e., with effect from 20.08.2022 as would be clear from paragraph 84 of the said judgment. Counsel denies that the Suit is barred by limitation. 8. We have heard the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 9. 7. It is also submitted that Patil Automation (supra) is prospective in its application i.e., with effect from 20.08.2022 as would be clear from paragraph 84 of the said judgment. Counsel denies that the Suit is barred by limitation. 8. We have heard the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 9. The issue of maintainability should be decided before the merits of the Civil Revision Petition i.e., whether the Commercial Court was right in dismissing the petitioners’ application for rejection of the plaint which was filed by the respondent under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the C.P.C is taken up for consideration. 10. Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 contains a specific bar against filing of a Civil Revision Application or a petition from an interlocutory order of the Commercial Court including an order on the issue of jurisdiction. Section 8 begins with a non obstante clause in respect of any other law for the time being in force and justifies the bar on the remedy provided to an aggrieved party under section 13 of the 2015 Act. 11. Section 13 of the 2015 Act provides for Appeals from decrees of Commercial Courts and Commercial Divisions and contemplates a hierarchy of Courts in filing of Appeals. The embargo on Civil Revision Applications in section 8 is in consonance with the Statements of Objects and Reasons of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 which includes improvement of efficiency and reduction of delays in disposal of the commercial cases. 12. The bar contained in section 8 has been revisited by High Courts from time to time. In M.V. Ramana Rao (supra), a Division Bench of this Court construed the bar as being restricted only to a revision under section 115 of the C.P.C and not affecting the power of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. This view was reiterated in Harpreet Singh Chhabra (supra). M.V. Ramana Rao (supra) however sounded a caution in invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the sole purpose of circumventing section 8 of the 2015 Act with reference to the self-imposed restriction for exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 13. This view was reiterated in Harpreet Singh Chhabra (supra). M.V. Ramana Rao (supra) however sounded a caution in invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the sole purpose of circumventing section 8 of the 2015 Act with reference to the self-imposed restriction for exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 13. It is settled law that the power of superintendence of a High Court under Article 227 is not an un-fettered jurisdiction where each and every order can be corrected or interfered with. Apart from the broad outlines of flagrant abuse, miscarriage of justice or dereliction of duty, the High Court must be conscious of invoking the power within limits. The limitation to such power would particularly assume importance in the face of a special statute like The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 which was enacted for the specific purpose of speedy resolution of high value commercial disputes. 14. Therefore, the bar contained in section 8 of the 2015 Act against filing of the Civil Revision Applications or Petitions cannot be taken lightly. The wording of section 8 is strong and is meant to be given effect to, notwithstanding any other law for the time being in force. The justification for the embargo can be found in section 13 of the 2015 Act which provides for Appeals from decrees of Commercial Courts and Commercial Divisions to the next Court in the hierarchical pyramid of section 13(1A) of the 2015 Act. 15. The petitioners herein have no answer as to why they have not filed an Appeal under section 13 (1) or (1A) of the 2015 Act and they have instead chosen to file a Civil Revision Petition against the impugned order. One can presume that the choice may have something to do with the time limits under section 13(1) and (1A) of the 2015 Act, both of which provide for a period of 60 days from the date of the judgment/order for filing of the Appeal. 16. More important however is that the bar contained in section 8 of the 2015 Act specifically extends to “any interlocutory order of a Commercial Court”. In the present case, the petitioners’ application under Order VII Rule 11 of The C.P.C. was rejected. The impugned order hence is an interlocutory order. 16. More important however is that the bar contained in section 8 of the 2015 Act specifically extends to “any interlocutory order of a Commercial Court”. In the present case, the petitioners’ application under Order VII Rule 11 of The C.P.C. was rejected. The impugned order hence is an interlocutory order. The situation would have been reversed had the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C been allowed and the plaint been rejected amounting to a decree as defined in section 2(2) of the C.P.C. 17. We are therefore of the firm view that the bar contained in section 8 of the 2015 Act would fully apply to the facts of the present case and the petitioners cannot take refuge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for maintaining the present Civil Revision Petition. 18. Since we have held in favour of the respondent on the issue of maintainability, we do not propose to go into the merits of the dispute or the correctness/errors of the impugned order. 19. C.R.P.No.2623 of 2024 is accordingly dismissed by reason of not being maintainable. All connected applications are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.