DKT INDIA Vs. HLL LIFECARE LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff on 17th August, 2012 filed the above said suit against Bajaj Medicose, Distributor of HLL Lifecare Limited, a Government of India Enterprise and largest manufacturer of condoms in the world, seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing, passing off and damages to the tune of Rs.45 lacs, along with four applications being (i) I.A. No.14914/2012 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC), (ii) I.A. No.14915/2012 (under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Order XXXIX Rule 7 CPC), (iii) I.A. No.14916/2012 (under Order XIII Rule 1 CPC) and (iv) I.A. No.15722/2012 (under Order VI Rule 17 CPC).

(2.) When the suit and the interim applications were listed before Court on 21st August, 2012, an adjournment was sought by the learned counsel for the plaintiff seeking leave to amend the memo of parties by impleading defendant No.2 as defendant No.1 and substitute defendant No.1 as defendant No.2, while also asking for liberty to file certain undertakings that have taken place post filing of the suit. The suit was re-notified from time to time.

(3.) On 13th December, 2012, the application for amendment was allowed whereunder despite stating that the amendment is only for memo of parties, the entire suit, as originally filed, underwent a complete change, by bringing forth a plaint which contained complete sequence of facts that stood transpired till 17th August, 2012 and the documents in support thereof were filed on 27th August, 2012. However, no such intimation was given to this Court on the said date, thereby misleading the Court into assuming that the application for amendment was only limited to substituting defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 inter se with consequential changes.