Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

1. The present Civil Revision Petition (CRP) has been filed against a docket order dated 25.04.2026 passed by the learned Commercial Court at Hyderabad in I.A.No.619 of 2026 in C.O.S.No.248 of 2026.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed C.O.S.No.248 of 2026 against the petitioner/defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.16,66,26,333/-. The respondent/plaintiff also filed I.A.No.619 of 2026 under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) seeking attachment of the petition schedule property belonging to the petitioner/defendant.

3. By the impugned docket order dated 25.04.2026, the Commercial Court deemed it fit to direct the petitioner/defendant to furnish security equivalent to the suit amount i.e., Rs.16,66,26,333/-, within three weeks from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which the schedule ‘A’ to ‘I’ properties described in the petition shall be attached to the extent of the suit amount. The matter was made returnable on 18.06.2026.

4. On the returnable date i.e., 18.06.2026, the docket order passed by the Commercial Court records the filing of a petition by the petitioner/defendant under Rule 32 of The Civil Rules of Practice, a counter to the plaintiff’s I.A and a recall petition. The docket order dated 18.06.2026 further records that all the three petitions were ‘under scrutiny’. The Commercial Court proceeded to record that the petitioner/defendant failed to comply with the order dated 25.04.2026 and posted the matter to 30.06.2026. The docket order dated 18.06.2026 was passed in the absence of the petitioner/defendant.

5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant and the respondent/plaintiff.

6. Counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present CRP in light of section 8 of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (‘the 2015 Act’). Counsel further submits that despite being served with notice on 02.05.2026, the petitioner/defendant failed to appear before the Commercial Court within the time stipulated under the impugned order dated 25.04.2026.

7. We have considered the reasons given by the Commercial Court in the impugned order. The Commercial Court has recorded that the respondent/plaintiff has made out a prima facie case in respect of the outstanding amount due from the petitioner/defendant and that the respondent/plaintiff’s apprehension that the petitioner/defendant is making efforts to dilute its shareholding by disposing of the equity shares of the defendant Company is well-founded. The Commercial Court, accordingly, found it appropriate to direct the petitioner/defendant to furnish security.

8. Order XXXVIII Rule 6 of the CPC deals with attachment where cause not shown or security not furnished. Sub-rule (1) thereof elaborates that where the defendant fails to show cause as to why he should not furnish security, or fails to furnish the security required, within the time fixed by the Court, the Court may order that the property specified, or such portion thereof as appears sufficient to satisfy any decree which may be passed in the suit, be attached.

9. Order XXXVIII Rule 6(1) of the CPC presupposes that the defendant should be given an opportunity to show cause as to why the defendant should not be required to furnish security. This requirement is found under Order XXXVIII Rule 5(1) which provides that the defendant shall be given an opportunity to appear and show cause as to why he should not be directed to furnish security.

10. In the present case, save and except for a general view taken by the Commercial Court that the respondent/plaintiff has established a prima facie case with regard to the outstanding amount due from the petitioner/defendant and the fact that the defendant is attempting to dilute its shareholding, there is no consideration of either Order XXXVIII Rule 6(1) or the relevant part of Order XXXVIII Rule 5(1) of the CPC.

11. Moreover, the matter was returnable on 18.06.2026. Hence, the issue as to whether the petitioner/defendant received notice on 02.05.2026 is immaterial.

12. We are, accordingly, of the view that the impugned order suffers from an absence of adequate reasons and from a failure to afford the petitioner/defendant an opportunity to show cause as to why the defendant should not be directed to furnish such security. The docket order dated 18.06.2026 also does not delve into this issue.

13. The issue of maintainability raised on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff on the basis of the bar contained under section 8 of the 2015 Act from filing a civil revision petition from an interlocutory order of a Commercial Court cannot be treated as an absolute embargo on the High Court from exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, particularly where the exercise of its powers under the Constitution is concerned. There are decisions to the effect that the High Court can certainly intervene in matters where there has been a grave miscarriage of justice or a failure to consider the law relating to the subject matter. In the present case, since the Commercial Court failed to consider the relevant provisions of the CPC germane to a direction to furnish security, we are of the view that this is a fit case where the High Court can intervene under Article 227 of the Constitution.

14. C.R.P.No.1750 of 2026 is accordingly allowed and disposed of. The impugned order dated 25.04.2026 is set aside. All connected applications stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.