JUDGMENT : Sunita Agarwal, C.J. 1. The short question of law raised for consideration before us in the present set of appeals filed under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (for short 'CC Act') is whether the plaintiff in a Commercial Suit can seek exemption to comply with the provisions of Section 12A of CC Act to exhaust the remedy of pre-litigation mediation, merely by filing an application seeking an urgent relief. 2. The challenge in this set of appeals is to almost identical orders passed by the Commercial Court at Rajkot in four Commercial Trade Mark Suits No.1 of 2023; 2 of 2023; 3 of 2023; and 4 of 2023. All four Suits were preferred by the same person, the plaintiff-appellant herein namely Mr. Ashokbhai Majibhai Sankharava, sole proprietor of a business concern M/s. Unolex Aquatech, for infringement of the plaintiff's patented product bearing No. 388576 against four different business entities as defendants in the said suits. Along with the suit preferred on 20.09.2023, an application seeking exemption to comply with the requirement of Section 12A of the CC Act with the assertion that the plaintiff has filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking urgent relief and hence, the requirement of invoking pre-litigation may not be insisted upon. 3. We may note that the application seeking exemption from complying with the requirement of Section 12A of the CC Act filed in the above noted four suits are verbatim the same. For convenience, the facts of the Commercial Civil Suit No. 2 of 2023 are being referred hereinafter in this judgment. The Trial Court while rejecting the Application Exhibit 7 seeking exemption from compliance of Section 12A has also rejected the plaint in each Suit, noticing that the Commercial Suit was not maintainable without invoking mandatory provisions of Section 12A of the CC Act, amended as on date. 4. On the facts, the Trial Court noticing the plaint case has recorded that the plaintiff claims to be actual inventor and owner of "Submersible Aerators for Aquaculture Fish Farms and ET & ST Plant" used in fish farms and aquaculture and has got registered the patent for the same by preferring an application in the year 2014, which was granted on 04.02.2022, considering goodwill and high reputation of the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff is that he has every right to restrain the imitator and infringer of the patent product of the plaintiff including the defendants in the aforesaid suits. 5. On the presentation of the plaint, the Commercial Court having found that the suits were filed without compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 12A of the CC Act, on hearing the learned advocates appearing for the parties at length, has noted that on perusal of the entire averments of the plaint, it transpires that there is no satisfactory account given by the plaintiff, by which it can be said that the present suit by the plaintiff requires any urgent interim relief. Nowhere in the pleading, it is stated as to at what time or date, the patent of the plaintiff was infringed by the defendant. Paragraph 28' of the plaint where cause of action for filing the suit has been narrated, is cleverly drafted without mentioning the time or duration or the date when the factum of infringement carried out by the defendants came to the knowledge of the plaintiff. Vague averment has been made to the effect that the cause of action arose as and when the defendant has started manufacturing and marketing their product used in fish farms and aquaculture, which is identical to the plaintiff's patented product and upon inquiry, the plaintiff found that the defendant had copied the patented product of the plaintiff. 6. The Trial Court has categorically recorded that the expression "contemplation of urgent relief" requires to pass through certain tests/parameters, to be ascertained by the Trial Court, to check that the prayer for urgent interim relief may not be a camouflage and guise to bypass the statutory mandate of pre-litigation mediation when deception or falsity is apparent or established. 6. The Trial Court has categorically recorded that the expression "contemplation of urgent relief" requires to pass through certain tests/parameters, to be ascertained by the Trial Court, to check that the prayer for urgent interim relief may not be a camouflage and guise to bypass the statutory mandate of pre-litigation mediation when deception or falsity is apparent or established. Such parameter/test, as noted by the Trial Court in the judgement impugned, are relevant to be extracted hereinbelow :- (a) Whether the prayer for interim relief is a product of profound thinking carefully about the possibility of the happening; (b) Whether the matter demands prompt action and that promptitude is of such nature that exhausting the remedy of pre institution mediation without any intervention in the mean-time can lead to a irreversible situation, i.e. a situation where one cannot put the clock back; (c) Where the urgency is of plaintiff's own doing, if that be so the plaintiff cannot take advantage of its own doing; (d) High standard is required to establish the requirement of this prompt action (urgency); (e) Plaintiff should be on fair ground in urging urgency and an interim measure; (f) Actual or apprehended wrong or injury should be so imminent that the plaintiff should be able to satisfy the court that the plaintiff should not be made to stand and suffer the same. 7. It is concluded by the Trial Court that it is the duty of the plaintiff to show and establish that he is in the need of urgent interim relief, which cannot wait for the time prescribed under Section 12A of the CC Act requiring the plaintiff to exhaust the remedy of pre-litigation mediation and settlement. 8. The decision of the Apex Court in Patil Automation Private Limited vs. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited [ (2022) 10 SCC 1 ] has been relied the trial Court to note that Section 12A has been held to be mandatory and that any suit instituted violating the mandate of Section 12A must be visited with rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11. This power can be exercised even suo motu by the Commercial Court. 9. It was argued by Mr. This power can be exercised even suo motu by the Commercial Court. 9. It was argued by Mr. Aditya J. Pandya, learned advocate for the appellant that the decision of the Apex Court in Patil Automation Private Limited (supra) has further been explained in Yamini Manohar vs. T.K.D. Keerthi [2023 SCC Online SC 1382] holding that when a plaint is filed under the Commercial Courts Act with a prayer for an urgent interim relief, the Commercial Court should examine the nature and the subject matter of the suit, the cause of action, and the prayer for interim relief. The facts and circumstances of the case have to be considered holistically from the standpoint of the plaintiff. Non-grant of interim relief at interim stage, when the plaint is taken up for registration/admission and examination, will not justify dismissal of the commercial suit under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code. The words "contemplate any urgent interim relief" in Section 12A(1) of the CC Act, with reference to the Suit, should be read as conferring power on the Court to be satisfied. The submission is that the law laid down by the Apex Court in Patil Automation Private Limited (supra), has been explained and diluted to the extent that it is within the power of the Commercial Court to record satisfaction on consideration of the plaint, documents and facts on record that there is a need for an urgent interim relief from the standpoint of the plaintiff. 10. The further submission is that the plaintiff/appellant has filed an interim injunction application in the plaint with the categorical assertion that the products, viz. Submersible Venture Jet Aerators, Submersible Aerators for fish farms and aquaculture including Submersible Aerator, Paddle Wheel Aerator, Submersible Mixer, etc. are being manufactured by the plaintiff's proprietorship concern, viz. Unolex Aquatech since the year 2008. In the manufacturing process, the plaintiff uses high-grade raw material procured from vendors of high repute and employ high tech machines and advanced technologies for carrying out the production and its related process. At present, the plaintiff is India's leading/growing company in Submersible Aerator and other products not only in the national market but also having place in the international market. The plaintiff is connected with the research and development of the Submersible Venture Jet Aerator products and other related products since long. At present, the plaintiff is India's leading/growing company in Submersible Aerator and other products not only in the national market but also having place in the international market. The plaintiff is connected with the research and development of the Submersible Venture Jet Aerator products and other related products since long. After continuous and immense efforts and research over a period of time, the plaintiff has been able to invent a novel and innovative technique for "Submersible Aerators for Aquaculture Fish Farms and ET & ST Plant". The defendants are also engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing and selling aeration used in fish farms and aquaculture. The plaintiff being the actual inventor and owner of the above noted products, has got the patent vide Patent No. 388576 for the product viz., "Submersible Aerators for Aquaculture Fish Farms and ET & ST Plant". 11. Narrating the details of his invention in the interim injunction application, the plaintiff would submit that with the grant of patent on 04.02.2022, as per the provisions of Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970, the plaintiff gets exclusive rights for a period of 20 years from the date of filing of the patent application, which is 09.05.2014 in the present case. It is contended that the plaintiff has paid necessary fees as per the provisions of the Patents Act and the plaintiff's patent is valid and subsisting as on date. By giving a comparison of the features of the plaintiff's products and that of the defendant, it is asserted that they are identical, in fact similar to the ditto. With an intention to encroach upon the plaintiff's patented products, the defendant without obtaining any license or permission from the plaintiff had started manufacturing and marketing the plaintiff's patented product and, as such, are liable to be prosecuted for infringement of the plaintiff's patented product. The defendant is trying to gain illegal profit and also trying to damage the reputation and goodwill acquired by the plaintiff in respect of its patented products. 12. It may be noted that with the above assertions, which are common in each plaint and application seeking urgent relief, the plaintiff had initiated action against four manufacturers stating impleaded as defendants that they have been manufacturing and marketing the same (ditto) product as that of the plaintiff's product. 12. It may be noted that with the above assertions, which are common in each plaint and application seeking urgent relief, the plaintiff had initiated action against four manufacturers stating impleaded as defendants that they have been manufacturing and marketing the same (ditto) product as that of the plaintiff's product. Both the plaintiff and the defendants are carrying on their business activities in the District Rajkot. In view of these plaint averments, the Trial Court recorded that the plaintiff has not disclosed the cause of action for filing the Commercial Suit on the plea of infringement of the patent. Vague assertions about the cause of action with the plaintiff is one of the factors, which weighed in the mind of the Trial Court to hold that the plaintiff has failed to give a satisfactory account regarding the need of urgent interim relief without complying with the requirements of the provisions of Section 12A of the Act. 13. Noticing the above, we are of the considered opinion that on a careful reading of the plaint averments and the document in the nature of the application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, CPC filed by the plaintiff, it is difficult to accept that the plaintiff is entitled to exemption of the requirement under Section 12A of the CC Act. We may agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the expression in Section 12A that the suit must "contemplate an urgent interim relief" to seek exemption to exhaust the remedy of pre-litigation mediation in accordance with the Act and the Rules framed thereunder means that the plaint, the documents and the facts brought by the plaintiff on record, must indicate the need for urgent interim relief. 14. Considering the observations of the Apex Court in Patil Automation Private Limited (supra), in paragraph 113', as noted by the Commercial Court in the order impugned, we may record that it is no longer res integra that Section 12A of the CC Act is mandatory and any suit instituted violating the mandate of Section 12A must be visited with the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11, CPC. The Commercial Court where the plaint is presented even in exercising suo motu power can examine the nature and subject matter of the suit, the cause of action and the prayer for interim relief. 15. The Commercial Court where the plaint is presented even in exercising suo motu power can examine the nature and subject matter of the suit, the cause of action and the prayer for interim relief. 15. As held by the Apex Court in Yamini Manohar (supra), the words "contemplate any urgent interim relief" occurring in Section 12A(1) of the Act confers power on the trial Court to record its satisfaction on the facts and circumstances of the case considering the plaint, the documents and the facts on record, holistically from the standpoint of the plaintiff to test as to whether the prayer for urgent interim relief is a disguise or mask to wriggle out of and get over Section 12A of the CC Act. The Apex Court has observed when clarified in Yamini Manohar (supra) that the proposition that the Commercial Courts do have a role, albeit a limited one, should be accepted, otherwise it would be upto the plaintiff alone to decide whether to resort to the procedure under Section 12A of the CC Act. An "absolute and unfettered right" approach is not justified if the pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the CC Act is mandatory, as held by this Court in Patil Automation Private Limited (supra). 16. The Apex Court in Yamini Manohar (supra), has rejected the proposition that the plaintiff has the absolute choice and right to paralyse Section 12A of the CC Act by mere making a prayer for urgent interim relief. It is held that the camouflage and guise to bypass the statutory mandate of pre-litigation mediation should be checked when deception and falsity is apparent or established. It is held that this is the precise and limited exercise that the Commercial Courts will have to undertake, within the contours of the explanation, as in Patil Automation Private Limited (supra). It was observed by the Apex Court that this will be sufficient to keep in check and ensure that the legislative object/intent behind the enactment of Section 12A of the CC Act is not defeated. At the same time, it is clarified that non-grant of interim relief at the interim stage, when the plaint is taken up for registration/admission and examination, will not justify dismissal of the Commercial suit under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC; at times, interim relief is granted after issuance of notice. At the same time, it is clarified that non-grant of interim relief at the interim stage, when the plaint is taken up for registration/admission and examination, will not justify dismissal of the Commercial suit under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC; at times, interim relief is granted after issuance of notice. The suit cannot be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, because the interim relief, post the arguments, has been denied on merits. The fact that the Court issued notice and/or granted interim stay may indicate that the Court is inclined to entertain the plaint. 17. In light of the above stated position of law, having gone through the averments in the plaint, the interim application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC placed before us, we find that the Trial Court has correctly applied the law in the facts and circumstances of the case to record that in view of the evasive narration of cause of action described by the plaintiff by cleverly drafting the relevant paragraph of the plaint, it cannot be said that there is a need for urgent interim relief as the parameters/tests for the expression "contemplation of urgent relief" could not be passed by the plaintiff, in the instant case. 18. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any error in the judgement and order dated 22.09.2023 passed by the Trial Court in the above noted four Commercial Suits. All the appeals stand dismissed. 19. However, it is clarified that it would be open for the plaintiff to bring his fresh cause of action by complying with the requirement of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the dismissal of the suits or the present appeals will not come in the way of the plaintiff in such an eventuality.