As per case facts, the Union of India filed a money suit without undertaking mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the 2015 Act. The appellant (defendant) sought rejection of ... the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d). The trial court and the High Court both refused to reject the plaint, instead keeping the suit in abeyance and directing the Union of India to comply with mediation retrospectively, partly due to initial lack of infrastructure and the prospective nature of the mandatory declaration in the Patil Automation case, leading to the appeal. The question arose whether a commercial suit, filed prior to the Patil Automation judgment without mandatory pre-institution mediation, should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) or kept in abeyance for post-institution mediation. Finally, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and held that for suits instituted before 20.08.2022 without complying with Section 12A, rejection of the plaint is not warranted, but the court should keep the suit in abeyance and direct the parties to fully explore the possibility of a time-bound mediation in accordance with the Act and Rules