JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be very graciously enough allow this petition and by appropriate writ order or direction, the order impugn Annex-6 dismissing the application be set aside/ reversed and the application filed the petitioner Application dt 20/09/22 (Annex-4) seeking rejection of the plaint Annex-1 be allowed the plaint filed by the respondent be rejected. Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and found favourable to the petitioner may kindly be passed in favor of the petitioner; Costs of the petition may be awarded to the petitioner.”

2. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner are that the respondent instituted a suit for injunction and rendition of accounts before the learned Commercial Court No.1, Jodhpur Metro against the present petitioner, alleging infringement of the trademark; algonwith the suit, the respondent also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 along with 151 CPC and one more application seeking exemption from compliance of Section 12-A of the Commercial Court Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 2015’).

2.1. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC, Section 12-A of the Act of 2015 and Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which was rejected by the learned Court below vide the impugned order dated 11.11.2022.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 12A (1) of the Act of 2015 provides that, “a suit, which does not contemplate any urgent interim relief under the said Act, shall not be instituted, unless the plaintiff exhausts the remedy of preinstitution mediation in accordance with such manner and procedure as may be prescribed by rules made by the Central Government”. Therefore, as far as the suit in question is concerned, looking to the nature thereof, the same is mandatorily required to be referred for such pre-institution mediation.

3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that since the cause of action is said to have arisen in June 2022 and the suit was instituted in August 2022, and the plaintiff-respondent has also not furnished any explanation regarding such delay, therefore, it clearly reveals that he has no urgency in the matter.

3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that while filing the suit before the learned Court below (Commercial Court), the respondent has merely written a line to the effect that the valuation for the purpose of injunction is Rs. 5,01,000/-; but as per Section 12 of the Act of 2015, if real valuation of the suit in question is seen, then the Commercial Court does not have jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit.

3.3. In support of such submissions, reliance was placed upon the following judgments:-

(a) M/s Patil Automation Private Ltd. Vs Rakheja Engineers Private Ltd. (Arising out of SLP (C)No. 14697 of 2021, decided on 17.08.2022) rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court;

(b) Islaudeen Vs Shanti Lal Singhvi & Ors. (S.B.C.W.P. No. 4551/2018, decided on 03.04.2018) rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court;

(c) Kusuma Rathore Vs Sharad Sharma (W.P. 6798 of 2011, decided on 09.10.2012) rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh;

(d) Nandita Bose Vs Ratanlal Nahata (Civil Appeal No.1544 of 1987) rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court;

(e) M/s Shree Ram Junawa Industries Vs M/s Rounak Steels (S.B.C.W.P. No. 8048/2022, decided on 18.10.2022) passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court.

4. On the other hand, Dr. Ashok Soni, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Divyanshu Choudhary appearing on behalf of the respondent, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the instant petition is not mainta