UNICHEM LABORATORIES LTD Vs. MEDI TREAT DRUGS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed by the defendant under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/non-applications submits that she has no objection to the amendments sought by the defendant in paragraph 10 (C) & (D). However, she opposes the amendment sought in paragraph 10 (A) at page 3 of the application. It is further submitted that the remaining amendments flow out of the para 10(A) of this application. It would be useful to reproduce the amendment sought in paragraph 10 (A):

(2.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the defendant that as far as defendant No. 1 is concerned it had left the address B-45A New Gupta Colony, New Delhi since December, 2004 and this fact could not be brought out in the written statement inadvertantly. He wishes to take this ground subsequently in view of the averments made by the plaintiff in paragraph 18 of the plaint that this Court has territorial jurisdiction in view of the fact that the defendant No. 1 has its office at Delhi.

(3.) According to the applicant, this amendment goes to the root of the matter and would help in resolving the controversy between the parties. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant/defendant that the suit is at the initial stage of admission/denial of the documents and the Courts have been liberal in allowing the amendments as long as they do not change the character of the written statement.