HAWKINS COOKERS LTD Vs. CITIZEN METAL INDUSTRIES INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Order 6 Rule 17 the defendant seeks amendment of the Written Statement. It is stated in the application that there were subsequent facts required to be incorporated in the Written Statement. Since the plaintiff was allowed to amend the plaint, the amendment in the Written Statement was also necessary to deal with the amended plaint. It is also submitted that incorporation of the amendments was necessary for proper adjudication of controversy. The amendments are sought by the defendant in paragraphs No. 3 (1) and 4 of preliminary objection and defendant wants to add two more preliminary objections by adding paragraphs 20 and 21. The defendant also wants to amend paragraphs Nos. 1, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 18, 19, 24, 28 & 29 of reply on merits.

(2.) The only new fact which defendant wants to add is given in paragraph 14 of the reply on merits wherein defendant wants to add that defendant was holding Design Registration of Pressure Cooker vide Registration No. 190925 in class 07-02 and the registration was valid & subsisting and no suit for infringement was maintainable against a Registered Proprietor. All other amendments sought by the defendant in fact are nothing but expansion of the earlier paragraphs and replies. Defendant wants to add few lines in almost every paragraph to lay emphasize on what has already been stated. Two new paragraphs which defendant wants to add in preliminary objections seek to bring on record the legal provisions and non- maintainability of the suit.

(3.) A perusal of record would show that WS was filed on 18th December, 2002. This Court was informed on 18th February, 2003 that an affidavit was filed on behalf of Defendant No. 1 vide Dy. No. 3777 showing that Registration Certificate under the Designs Act had been granted to the defendant which defendant would place of record. The Court had allowed the affidavit to be taken on record. No amendment in WS was sought to incorporate this fact at that time. The matter thereafter got prolonged because of enhancement of the jurisdiction of the District Court and sending of this case to District Court. Thereafter, plaintiff made an application for amendment of the plaint thereby raising the amount of claim and the valuation of suit. The amendment was allowed and the defendant was given opportunity to file WS to amend the plaint vide order dated 18th May, 2005 when the case again came up before this Court. The defendant was to file WS within 30 days. No Written Statement was filed by the defendant despite opportunities. Admission/denial of documents took place and thereafter, defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 for rejection of the plaint, which was dismissed by this Court and after dismissal of the application for rejection of plaint present application for amendment of the WS was filed.