A plaintiff may be exempt from mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act when seeking urgent interim relief in ongoing infringement cases, despite any filing delay.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The Petitioner is Defendant No.1 in Civil Suit No. 228 of 2025 pending before the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Commercial Court, Bhubaneswar, wherein, the present Opposite Party is the Plaintiff. The present revision is directed against order dated 19.09.2025 passed by the said Court,whereby the application filed by the Petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground of non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 was rejected. Further, the rejection of application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 19.05.2025 and to recall the order dated 19.09.2025 are also impugned herein.

2. The facts, briefly stated are that the Opposite Party, as Plaintiff, instituted Civil Suit No. 228 of 2025 on 13.05.2025 seeking, inter alia, a decree of permanent and mandatory injunction alleging infringement of its copyright in respect of certain artistic works relating to the depiction of ‘Lord Jagannath’ and a character described as ‘Jagan.’ Along with the plaint, the Plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking ad interim injunction, as well as an application seeking exemption from compliance with the requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 on the ground of urgency.

By order dated 19.05.2025, the Commercial Court granted exemption from pre-institution mediation. The Petitioner, upon entering appearance, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC contending that the suit was not maintainable for want of compliance with Section 12-A of the Act, as no genuine urgency was disclosed in the plaint or the interlocutory application. It was further stated that the cause of action was stated to have arisen in May 2024, whereas the suit was instituted only in May 2025, stating absence of plea of urgency.

The Commercial Court, upon consideration, rejected the said application by the impugned order holding that the suit contained urgent interim relief and therefore, would fall within the exception under Section 12-A of the Act. Being aggrieved, the present revision has been filed.

3. Heard Mr. S. Routray, learned counsel for the Petitioner-Defendant No.1 and Ms. Pami Rath, learned Senior Counsel with Ms. S. Gumansingh learned counsel for the Opposite party-plaintiff.

4. Mr. Routray would argue that that the Court below committed illegality in rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by failing to appreciate that compliance with Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act is mandatory in nature, as held by the Supreme Court in several judgments. He submits that the exemption from pre-institution mediation can be granted only where the plaintiff genuinely seeks urgent interim relief, and not where such urgency is illusory or created merely to evade the statute. It is his submission that a bare reading of the plaint would show that the plaintiff has himself pleaded that the alleged cause of action arose in May 2024 and continued till February, 2025, yet the suit was instituted only on 13.05.2025, i.e., after a considerable lapse of time. According to him, such delay is inconsistent with any plea of urgency and clearly demonstrates that the exemption sought was a mere device to bypass the mandatory requirement of pre-institution mediation.

He further submits that the conduct of the plaintiff also fails to justify the plea of urgency inasmuch as the application for injunction was served upon the petitioner only on 27.08.2025, i.e.