KIRLOSKAR COPELAND LTD Vs. DALJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM(M)1732/2004 is directed against the order dated 16.11.2004 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby the learned Judge has disposed of an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment to enhance the valuation of the Suit to Rs.25,00,000/- (rupees twenty five lakhs) for the purposes of jurisdiction.

(2.) Nobody appears for the respondent in spite of service. The facts as stated in the application are as follows:-

(3.) It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that in the suit filed for infringement of copyright the respondent had continued to violate the same and, therefore, a Local Commissioner was appointed who returned his observation to the effect that the respondents were reconditioning compressors and components under the trademark 'Kirloskar'. An injunction was issued yet, in spite of the injunction, the respondent continued to violate the trademark and reconditioned compressors under the trademark 'Kirloskar'. A contempt petition was filed and also another Local Commissioner was appointed. He too confirmed that the trademark was being infringed. Consequently, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 was moved to amend the plaint to raise the valuation to Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand) for the purposes of jurisdiction. He contends that since the loss the petitioner had incurred is recurring, it has became necessary to amend the plaint. He supports his contention by a judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s Commercial Aviation and Travel Company and Others Vs. Mrs.Vimla Pannalal, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1636.