Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Jayant Nath, J. allowed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of witness statement filed by the defendants in the suit concerned.
The suit against defendants was listed for plaintiff’s evidence wherein the charge had already been framed. It was pleaded by the defendants that in the meanwhile they had received a Certificate for Registration of Design for the pen against which the suit was filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiffs resisted the said application contending the plea which was sought to be asked by the defendants was a self-destructive plea.
The High Court noted that what the defendants sought to add by way of the amendment were subsequent developments which arose after filing of the suit and was necessary for the purpose of determination of the real question in controversy between the parties. It was observed that the instant was not the stage where the Court would go into the merits of the proposed amendment. Such were the issues which the plaintiff has to raise at the time of adjudication of the suit. Wrongly or rightly, the defendants had received registration of their design. They only sought to place this subsequent development on record. The Court found no merits in the plea of the plaintiff and therefore the amendment of the written statement was allowed. [Pentel Kabushiki Kaisha v. Arora Stationers,2018 SCC OnLine Del 12567, decided on 25-10-2018]
