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. 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 maintainable, in view of the specific bar under Section 8 of the Act of 2015, as the said provision clearly speaks about the bar against filing of the revision application or petition against an interlocutory order. 4.1. 4.1. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in the impugned order, the learned Court below clearly stated that the questions raised by the petitioner are mixed questions of fact and law, which can only be decided after due trial in the suit; therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is justified in law. 4.2. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that Section 12-A of the Act of 2015 mandates preinstitution mediation and settlement only in the matters where no urgent interim relief is contemplated, but in the present matter, the respondent averred its urgency in the plaint itself, and also in its temporary injunction application; therefore, as per learned Senior Counsel, the said provision cannot be attracted in the present case. 4.3. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in the instant petition, there is no ground with regard of Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 as well as no bar under the said section at all, as regards grant of relief of temporary injunction; and thus, the same can be entertained by the learned Court below. 4.4. In support of such submissions, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the following judgments: (a) Sudhir Bhatia Trading AS V. Bhatia International Vs Central Government of India & Ors (W.P. (c) IPD 37/2021 & CM 5660/2009, decided on 19.05.2022) rendered by the High Court of Delhi; (b) Patil Automation Pvt Ltd & Ors Vs. Rakheja Engineers Pvt Ltd (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14697 of 2021, decided on 17.08.2022) rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court; (c) Chandra Kishore Chaurasia Vs. R A Perfumery Works Pvt. Ltd. (FAO (COMM) 128/2021, CM Nos. 28066/2021, 28067/2021 & 40033/2021, decided on 27.10.2022) rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi; (d) Bolt Technology OU Vs. Ujoy Technology Pvt. Ltd & Anr., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2639; (e) Upgrad Education Pvt. Ltd Vs. Intellipaat Software Solution Pvt. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 644; (f) Sandip Kumar Roy Choudary & Ors. Vs. Indian Plumbing Association, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3272; (g) Neelkanth Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. & Ors Vs. M/s Neelkanth Minechem Partnership Firm (S.B. Civil Revision No.217 of 2017, decided on 10.11.2017) rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court; (h) Bharat Bhushan Gupta Vs. Pratap Narain Verma & Anr., (2022) 8 SCC 333 . 5. Vs. Indian Plumbing Association, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3272; (g) Neelkanth Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. & Ors Vs. M/s Neelkanth Minechem Partnership Firm (S.B. Civil Revision No.217 of 2017, decided on 10.11.2017) rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court; (h) Bharat Bhushan Gupta Vs. Pratap Narain Verma & Anr., (2022) 8 SCC 333 . 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar. 6. This Court observes that the respondent instituted a suit for injunction and rendition of accounts before the learned Court below against the present petitioner alleging infringement of the trademark; he 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 Act of 2015. 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. 7. This Court further observes that the determination of the valuation of the suit pertaining to infringement of the trade mark is a mixed question of facts and law, and therefore, it cannot be decided at the present stage of the suit in question, and can only be decided at the time of final adjudication of the suit. Therefore, at this premature stage, the issue raised by the petitioner cannot be decided. 8. This Court has also taken into due consideration the judgments rendered in the cases of Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Supra) and Chandra Kishore Chaurasia (Supra), relevant portions whereof are reproduced as hereunder: Patil Automation Pvt Ltd & Ors (Supra) : “54. The potential of Section 89 of the CPC for resolving disputes has remained largely untapped on account of the fact that mediation has become the product of volition of the parties. Courts, no doubt, have begun to respond positively. However, there was a pressing need to decongest the trial courts, in commercial matters in particular, as they bear the brunt of docket explosion. It is noteworthy that Section 12A provides for a bypass and a fast-track route without for a moment taking the precious time of a court. Courts, no doubt, have begun to respond positively. However, there was a pressing need to decongest the trial courts, in commercial matters in particular, as they bear the brunt of docket explosion. It is noteworthy that Section 12A provides for a bypass and a fast-track route without for a moment taking the precious time of a court. At this juncture, it must be immediately noticed that the Law-giver has, in Section 12A, provided for preinstitution mediation only in suits, which do not contemplate any urgent interim relief. Therefore, preinstitution mediation has been mandated only in a class of suits. We say this for the reason that in suits which contemplate urgent interim relief, the Law-giver has carefully vouch-safed immediate access to justice as contemplated ordinarily through the courts. The carving out of a class of suits and selecting them for compulsory mediation, harmonises with the attainment of the object of the law. The load on the Judges is lightened. They can concentrate on matters where urgent interim relief is contemplated and, on other matters, which already crowd their dockets. 73. In the cases before us, the suits do not contemplate urgent interim relief. As to what should happen in suits which do contemplate urgent interim relief or rather the meaning of the word ‘contemplate’ or urgent interim relief, we need not dwell upon it. The other aspect raised about the word ‘contemplate’ is that there can be attempts to bypass the statutory mediation under Section 12A by contending that the plaintiff is contemplating urgent interim relief, which in reality, it is found to be without any basis. Section 80(2) of the CPC permits the suit to be filed where urgent interim relief is sought by seeking the leave of the court. The proviso to Section 80 (2) contemplates that the court shall, if, after hearing the parties, is satisfied that no urgent or immediate relief need be granted in the suit, return the plaint for presentation to the court after compliance. Our attention is drawn to the fact that Section 12A does not contemplate such a procedure. This is a matter which may engage attention of the lawmaker. Again, we reiterate that these are not issues which arise for our consideration. In the fact of the cases admittedly there is no urgent interim relief contemplated in the plaints in question.” Chandra Kishore Chaurasia (Supra): “29. This is a matter which may engage attention of the lawmaker. Again, we reiterate that these are not issues which arise for our consideration. In the fact of the cases admittedly there is no urgent interim relief contemplated in the plaints in question.” Chandra Kishore Chaurasia (Supra): “29. A plain reading of Sub-section (1) of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 indicates that the institution of a suit, which does not contemplate any urgent interim relief, is proscribed unless the plaintiff exhausts the remedy of pre-institution mediation in accordance with the procedure as may be prescribed. There is no ambiguity that a suit, which contemplates urgent interim relief, is excluded from the rigor of Section 12A(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Thus, a plaintiff seeking to institute a suit involving urgent interim relief(s) is not required to exhaust the remedy of pre-institution mediation. 35. This Court is of the view that the question whether a suit involves any urgent interim relief is to be determined solely on the basis of the pleadings and the relief(s) sought by the plaintiff. If a plaintiff seeks any urgent interim relief, the suit cannot be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff has not exhausted the pre-institution remedy of mediation as contemplated under Section 12A(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015”. 8.1. However, in the present case, the respondent filed an application seeking temporary injunction along with the suit and the pleadings thereof clearly shows urgency in the matter. This Court further observes that the respondent also filed an application seeking exemption from compliance of Section 12-A of the Act of 2015, because the present matter is pertaining to infringement of the trademark, and that, there is recurring loss in the business of the respondent. The provision of Section 12-A of the Act of 2015 is mandatory in nature and can be attracted only in those cases, which do not reflect any urgency, which is not the position in the present case, and therefore, the said provision is not applicable in the present case. 9. Thus, in light of the above observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present petition. 10. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.