Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
ARCHIDPLY INDUSTRIES LIMITED .....Plaintiff
Advocates who appeared in this case For the Plaintiff : Mr. Balaji P. and Ms. Vidiya R. P., Advocates.
For the Defendants : Mr. Kamal Garg, Advocate.
1. This is an Application filed on behalf of the Plaintiff / Applicant under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), seeking amendment of the pleading. By way of the present Application, the Plaintiff seeks to replace Page Nos. 50 to 56 of the Plaint with the correct document.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:
2. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the present Suit has been filed seeking permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from using the Mark ‘ARCHIT’ and its variants / any other Trade Mark which is deceptively similar or identical to the Plaintiff’s Trade Marks ‘ARCHID’ / ‘ARCHIDPLY’ / ‘ARCHIDLAM’.
3. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that due to an inadvertent error, seven pages of the pleadings, specifically the Affidavit filed in support of the Electronic Records, were erroneously filed bearing the signature of a third-party, that is 66not connected to the present Suit. It is also submitted that the aforesaid error was neither deliberate nor willful.
4. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the proposed amendment is a mere substitution of the said Affidavit with the correct Affidavit duly signed by the Plaintiff. It is further submitted that the said substitution is purely procedural in nature, and that it does not, in any manner, alter or affect the contents of the Plaint or the merits of the case.
5. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that there is no advantage or favorable order that has been obtained on the basis of the Affidavit in support of Electronic Records, which is now sought to be amended and substituted with the correct Affidavit.
6. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the amendment is sought to rectify a clerical and inadvertent error, allowance of which does not change the nature of the Suit. It is further submitted that the Plaintiff immediately filed the Application after realizing the said error, even before the Defendants filed their Written Statement. It is also submitted that the amendment is necessary for the proper adjudication of the present Suit and that no prejudice would be caused to the Defendants if the same is allowed.
7. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that the present Application be allowed.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS:
8. The learned Counsel for the Defendants submitted that the amendment of pleadings cannot be equated with the replacement of documents. It is further submitted that under the garb of amendment of pleadings, the Plaintiff intends to replace the Affidavit which was not only signed by a different person but also attested by a Notary official. Therefore, this is not a case of amendment, but of replacement of the Affidavit in question with a fresh Affidavit, and the same should not be allowed as it would be a violation of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.
9. The learned Counsel for the Defendants submitted that the Plaintiff has failed to justify how the error was committed by the Plaintiff. It is further submitted that the Affidavit in question bears the particulars of Mr. Atul Krishna Pandey as the authorized representative of the Plaintiff but the same has been signed and sworn by another person under the stamp of ‘J.G. Hosiery Private Limited’, who is not the authorized representative of the Plaintiff.
10. The learned Counsel for the Defendants submitted that the Counsel for the Plaintiff, Ms. Sonam Nanda, has put her signatures for the purpose of verification / identification of the deponent, who is not the authorized representative of the Plaintiff, i.e., Mr. Atul Krishna Pandey. It is further submitted that the other affidavits filed along with the Plaint have been attested on 22.05.2024 in Delhi under the identification of the Plaintiff’s Counsel, Ms. Sonam Nanda, whereas the Affidavit in question has been attested on 22.05.2024 in Tamil Nadu under the identification of the same Counsel. Therefore, the nature of circumstances under which the error crept into the Plaint, as claimed by the Plaintiff in the present Application, has not been spelled out by the Plaintiff.
11. The learned Counsel for the Defendants submitted that the Plaintiff has also failed to justify how both the Counsel of Plaintiff, Ms. Sonam Nanda, and the Notary official, committed the said error at the same time and due to such non-justification, the present Application is liable to be dismissed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
12. Heard the learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the material placed on record.
13. The issue for adjudication in the present Application is whether the Plaintiff can be allowed to amend the Plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
14. The law on the scope of application of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment is settled in Varun Pahwa v. Renu Chaudhary, (2019) 15 SCC 628, wherein the Supreme Court observed as under:
Co. v. Commercial Union Assn., (1883) 32 WR 262 (CA)] — an appeal that came up before the Court of Appeal, Brett, M.R. stated: ‘… The rule of conduct of the court in such a case is that, however negligent or careless may have been the first omission, and, however late the proposed amendment, the amendment should be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side. There is no injustice if the other side can be compensated by costs; but, if the amendment will put them into such a position that they must be injured, it ought not to be made….’
19. In Charan Das v. Amir Khan [Charan Das v. Amir Khan, 1920 SCC OnLine PC 51: (1919-20) 47 IA 255] the Privy Council exposited the legal position that although power of a Court to amend the plaint in a suit should not as a rule be exercised where the effect is to take away from the defendant a legal right which has accrued to him by lapse of time, yet there are cases in which that consideration is outweighed by the special circumstances of the case. ***
22. In Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal [Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, (1969) 1 SCC 869] this Court was concerned with a matter wherein amendment in the plaint was refused on the ground that the amendment could not take effect retrospectively and on the date of the amendment the action was barred by the law of limitation. It was held: (SCC p. 871, para 5) ‘5. … Rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. The court always gives leave to amend the pleading of a party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide, or that by his blunder, he had caused injury to his opponent which may not be compensated for by an order of costs. However negligent or careless may have been the first omission, and, however late the proposed amendment, the amendment may be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side.’ This Court further stated: (Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal case [Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, (1969) 1 SCC 869], SCC p. 873, para 7) ‘7. … The power to grant amendment of the pleadings is intended to serve the ends of justice and is not governed by any such narrow or technical limitations.’”
10. In Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh [Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh, (2006) 1 SCC 75], this Court held that procedural defects and irregularities which are curable should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights or to cause injustice. Procedure should never be made a tool to deny justice or perpetuate injustice by any oppressive or punitive use. The Court held as under: (SCC pp. 83-84, para 17) “17. Non-compliance with any procedural requirement relating to a pleading, memorandum of appeal or application or petition for relief should not entail automatic dismissal or rejection, unless the relevant statute or rule so mandates. Procedural defects and irregularities which are curable should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights or to cause injustice. Procedure, a handmaiden to justice, should never be made a tool to deny justice or perpetuate injustice, by any oppressive or punitive use. The well-recognised exceptions to this principle are:
(i) where the statute prescribing the procedure, also prescribes specifically the consequence of non-compliance;
(ii) where the procedural defect is not rectified, even after it is pointed out and due opportunity is given for rectifying it;
(iii) where the non-compliance or violation is proved to be deliberate or mischievous;
(iv) where the rectification of defect would affect the case on merits or will affect the jurisdiction of the court;
(v) in case of memorandum of appeal, there is complete absence of authority and the appeal is presented without the knowledge, consent and authority of the appellant.”
15. The rules of procedure are handmaidens of justice and cannot defeat the substantive rights of the parties to a dispute. It is well-established in law that amendment of pleadings cannot be refused merely on account of inadvertent errors or negligence. In such cases, the Court shall not refuse amendment of pleadings based on technical considerations as the power to grant amendment is intended to prevent any miscarriage of justice.
16. It is the Defendant’s case that under the garb of amendment, the Plaintiff is attempting to replace the Affidavit in question, which is impermissible under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. Per contra, the Plaintiff maintains that the said Affidavit erroneously bears the signature of a thirdparty that is not even related to the present Suit, and the amendment is aimed at correcting the said error.
17. Perusal of the record shows that the Plaint bears the signature of Mr. Atul Krishna Pandey, the authorized representative of the Plaintiff, except Page Nos. 50 to 56 of the Plaint entailing the Affidavit in support of Electronic Records, which bear the signature of a third-party not related to the present Suit. Therefore, the said error appears to be inadvertent in nature, and arises out of negligence on the Plaintiff’s part.
18. Accordingly, the amendment is only limited to the correction of the error that the Affidavit in question bears the signature of a third-party, apart from which, the contents of the said Affidavit remain the same. Therefore, there is no force in the Defendant’s contention that the Plaintiff is attempting to replace the Affidavit in question under the garb of amendment.
19. It is also clear that the amendment of the Plaint as sought in the present Application, will not affect the merits of the case. As discussed above, the power to grant amendment of pleadings seeks to serve the ends of justice. In the present case, the error on the Plaintiff’s part appears to be inadvertent in nature and the same is required to be corrected to ensure proper adjudication of the real questions in controversy between the Parties in the present Suit.
20. In view of the above, the present Application is allowed, and the Plaintiff is permitted to replace Page Nos. 50 to 56 of Index I of the Plaint with the correct document subject to payment of costs of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand Only) in the account of Delhi High Court Staff Welfare Fund [Account No. 15530110074442; IFSC UCBA0001553] within a period of four weeks.
21. The Application stands disposed of.
TEJAS KARIA, J DECEMBER 24, 2025 ST