1 / 4 2025:CGHC:47189 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4896 of 2025 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur C.G. (Though the Petitioner No. 1 Was Not A Party Before The Learned Commercial Court (District Judge Level), Nava Raipur However For Just And Proper Adjudication Of The Matter, The Petitioner No. 1 Is Proper Necessary Party). 2 - The Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Public Health Engineering Division, Rajnandgaon, Near Mansukhlal Petrol Pump, B J P Office, Kailash Nagar, Ditrict Rajnandgaon C.G.- 491441. ... Petitioners versus HES Water Engineers (India) Private Limited Having Registered Address At Plot No. K-27, Five Star Industrial Zone, M I D C Butibori, District Nagpur, Maharashtra-441108. ... Respondent For Petitioners/State : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. AG For Caveator : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 15/09/2025 ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.09.19 18:30:22 +0530 2 / 4 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard on the issue of maintainability of the petition. 2. The present petition has been filed by the State against the order dated 12/06/2025 passed by the learned Commercial Court (District Judge Level), Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, C.G. in Execution No.46/2024, whereby the application filed by the petitioner No.2 under Section 47 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code has been dismissed. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 21/07/2022 MSME Facilitation Council Nagpur passed an ex-parte arbitral award in Ref. No.MH/00985 against M/s G.M. Ramteke. The respondent has filed an execution case before the learned Commercial Court by moving an application under Order 21 Rule 11 (2) of the CPC read with Section 36 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 for execution of the award dated 04/05/2023 passed by the Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Nagpur (M.H.) in Reference No.MH-00985. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the learned Commercial Court has committed error as it failed to look into the cause title of the award dated 21/07/2022. He would next contend that there is no provision under the law which gives a liberty to a party to change the description of the non-applicant /Judgment debtor while filing the application for execution of such award. He would next contend that the application moved by the respondent 3 / 4 and consequent execution No.46 of 2024 registered by the Commercial Court was not maintainable because the party against whom the respondent wanted to get its decree executed are altogether different. He would next contend that the scope of amendment of a decree is very limited as provided under Section 152 of the CPC, therefore, the respondent could have sought amendment in the decree only of clerical or arithmetical mistakes. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/Caveator contended that the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and not under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the instant writ petition is not maintainable. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length on the maintainability of the petition. 7. Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 provides for bar against revision application or petition against an interlocutory order. Section 8 of the Act, 2015 reads as under:- 8. Bar against revision application or petition against an interlocutory order.- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no civil revision application or petition shall be entertained against any interlocutory order of a Commercial Court, including an order on the issue of jurisdiction, and any such challenge, subject to the provisions of section 13, shall be raised only in an appeal against the decree of the Commercial Court. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner has not challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 before the 4 / 4 competent Court thereafter, the respondent has filed the application under Order 21 for execution of the award and then the petitioner has filed objection under Section 47 read with Section 151 CPC questioning the jurisdiction and authority of the execution and thereafter the order dated 12/06/2025 has been passed and the objection of the petitioner has been dismissed. 9. Looking to the provisions of Section 8 of the Act, 2015 and further looking to the fact that the petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution instead of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which is not maintainable. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed as not maintainable. SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu